U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–364PS 2004

FUELING THE HIGH TECH WORKFORCE

WITH MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 23, 2004

Serial No. 108–38

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

January 23, 2004

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Phil Gingrey, Member, Committee on Science,

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative Lincoln Davis, Member, Committee on Science,

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 11

Witnesses:

Ms. Rachel Purcell, Valedictorian, Class of 2004, Campbell High School,

Smyrna, Georgia

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Biography .......................................................................................................... 18

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 18

Mr. Randy O. McClure, Teacher and Department Chair for Science, Campbell

High School, Smyrna, Georgia

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 24

Mr. J. Martez Hill, Policy Director, Georgia Department of Education

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Biography .......................................................................................................... 28

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 29

Dr. Paul Ohme, Director, Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC), Georgia Institute of Technology

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Biography .......................................................................................................... 70

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 71

Mr. C. Michael Cassidy, President, Georgia Research Alliance

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 72

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 74

Biography .......................................................................................................... 76

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 77

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 78

(1)

FUELING THE HIGH TECH WORKFORCE WITH

MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:20 a.m., in the Campbell High School Auditorium, Smyrna, Georgia, Hon. Phil Gingrey

presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fueling the High Tech Workforce

With Math and Science Education

FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2004

9:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

CAMPBELL HIGH SCHOOL,

SMYRNA, GEORGIA

1. Purpose

On Friday, January 23, 2004, the House Science Committee will hold a field hearing to examine various strategies underway to improve student achievement and

teacher performance in math and science education. This hearing will also discuss

the value of a well-educated science and technology workforce to job creation and

economic vitality.

2. Witnesses

Ms. Rachel Purcell is a senior at Campbell High School. She is valedictorian of

her class and she hopes to pursue a career in medicine.

Mr. Randy McClure is a teacher and the Department Chair for Science at Campbell High School.

Mr. J. Martez Hill is Director of Policy at the Georgia Department of Education.

Dr. Paul Ohme (OH-may) is the Director of the Center for Education in Science,

Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC, pronounced ‘‘seismic’’) at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Prior to joining CEISMC, Dr. Ohme served as the Associate Vice

President for Academic Affairs and the Head of the Department of Computer

Science at Northeast Louisiana University. Dr. Ohme also taught mathematics and

computer science at various colleges and universities, including Clemson, Mississippi, and Franklin and Marshall.

Mr. C. Michael Cassidy is the President of the Georgia Research Alliance. Before

joining the Alliance, Mr. Cassidy managed the Advanced Technology Development

Center (ATDC) based at the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the Nation’s oldest technology incubators. He also worked for IBM, where he held various staff and

management positions. In addition to his work at the Alliance, Mr. Cassidy consults

with several states on issues of science and technology policy and he represents

Georgia on the Southern Technology Council and the Southern Governors’ Association Advisory Committee on Research, Development and Technology.

3. Overarching Questions

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

• How can federal, State, and local entities work together to attract and educate the next generation of scientists and engineering students? What strategies are being employed to increase math and science interest and achievement at the State and local levels?

• How important is a well-educated workforce to keeping the Nation at the

forefront of research, development and ground-breaking advances in science

and technology? What will happen if we cannot adequately develop our domestic talent?

• How can successes in these areas translate into economic gains and other opportunities for individuals, businesses, and the Nation as a whole?

4. Brief Overview

• The U.S. Department of Labor projects that new jobs requiring science, engineering and technical training will increase four times higher than the average national job growth rate. Clearly, workers increasingly require a solid

4

academic foundation in science and math—as well as technical know-how—

to succeed in today’s high-tech workplace.

• This issue of national importance is especially important in Georgia, where

the rapidly growing science and technology workforce is now the 11th largest

in the Nation. In addition, Georgia is a leading State in emerging fields such

as nanotechnology and 9th nationally in the emerging field of biotechnology.

• Despite these growing demands, only two out of every 100 high school graduates nationally will ever obtain an engineering or technical degree and only

nine out of 1,000 women and eight out of 1,000 minorities will ever obtain

an engineering degree.

• Further, most of the graduating class in America’s high schools is either not

sufficiently prepared or not sufficiently motivated to pursue advanced study

in science, math, engineering or technology fields. According to the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), fewer than one-third of all U.S.

students in grades four, eight and twelve performed at or above proficient levels, while a third performed below basic levels.

• While there are no quick fixes, we can take steps now to re-examine how

teachers teach and students learn math and science. Successfully addressing

these challenges will positively impact Georgia’s economic growth and, consequently, the economic welfare and scientific discovery of the Nation as a

whole.

5. Background

For decades, the United States has been able to conduct cutting-edge science because of its ability to both recruit talented American students into science and technology fields and import the best and brightest from around the world. Our well

educated workforce has fueled the Nation’s engine of economic growth, and it has

propelled the U.S. to global leadership in science and technology (S&T). Unfortunately, a decline in our domestic S&T workforce, new restrictions on foreign-born

individuals, and an increase in competition for S&T talent may make it difficult for

the U.S. to maintain its edge into the future.

Student Achievement in Math and Science

The future of the Nation depends on a strong, competitive workforce and a citizenry well equipped to function in an increasingly complex and interdependent

world. While the most recent results of the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) show that student achievement is generally up over the last 30

years, large numbers of U.S. students demonstrate a mastery of only rudimentary

mathematics. In fact, 31 percent of 4th graders, 34 percent of 8th graders and 35

percent of 12th graders scored below ‘‘basic.’’ Worse, the achievement gap in NAEP

math scores between white and black students and between white and Hispanic students has remained relatively unchanged since 1990, with 68 percent of African

American 8th graders scoring below basic compared to 23 percent of white students.

On international assessments, U.S. performance relative to other nations actually

declines with increased schooling. According to the most recent (1999) Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), an assessment that evaluates the

math and science performance of 4th, 8th and 12th grade students from 42 different

countries, most U.S. children score above average in elementary school, but those

in 12th grade—including our most advanced students—rank among the lowest of all

participating countries, outperformed by nearly every industrialized nation and

ahead of only Cyprus and South Africa.

According to the TIMSS analysis, most U.S. high school students take no advanced science, with only 25 percent enrolling in physics and 50 percent in chemistry. These high school graduates are not prepared to study college level science

or engineering and, in fact, are unlikely ever to do so.

While U.S. undergraduate and graduate education remains the envy of the world,

the interest of and the participation by U.S. students in science, technology, engineering and math is declining. In fact, of the 25–30 percent of freshmen who express

an interest in science and engineering, less than half complete a science or engineering degree in five years. As noted by the 1998 Science Committee study, entitled

Unlocking Our Future, ‘‘There appears to be a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students in the

U.S. and the present and future need for those with training in our society.’’ This

is especially the case in emerging and interdisciplinary areas, such as

nanotechnology, information assurance, and bioinformatics.

As the number of U.S. science and engineering students declines, our dependence

on foreign students grows. According to the National Science Foundation’s Science

5

and Engineering Indicators (2002), the percentage of foreign-born individuals among

scientists and engineers in the U.S. is growing at all degree levels, in all sectors,

and in most fields. Especially high percentages are found in engineering (45 percent), computer sciences (43 percent) and mathematics (30 percent).

At the same time, other nations are aggressively acting to stem their own ‘‘brain

drains’’ and entice citizens trained in the U.S. to return to their native countries,

and many are succeeding. The Council of Scientific Society Presidents estimates

that by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all physical scientists

and engineers in the world will be Asians working in Asia. New opportunities to

do high wage, high value work without immigrating to the U.S. may reduce the net

‘‘brain gain’’ that has been so critical to our historic economic success.

Workforce

In December 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projected that the number of professional information technology jobs in the U.S. would grow by more than

70 percent between 2000 and 2010. (New projections in March 2004 will cover 2002

to 2012 and factor in the economic impacts of events and trends subsequent to the

previous projects, such as the 2001 recession and the terrorist attacks.) With unemployment at six percent and a net loss of jobs since 9/11, the case for a shortage

may be suspect. But, if the economy continues to rally, our need for qualified workers will grow.

Over the next fifteen years, 40 million workers will retire, but the growth in the

number of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 is expected to be flat over that

same period. This future shortage will be compounded by the fact that worker skills

and education are not keeping pace with extraordinary technological advances in

the workplace. According to the BLS, 15 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are

expected to require substantial math or science preparation.

To remain competitive, we must do a better job of educating, hiring, training, retaining and advancing our workers. Our education and training programs must do

more to prepare and connect workers to today’s jobs and help them keep pace with

the changing skill demands of the 21st century workplace. Also, businesses must

look for workers in populations they have historically neglected, such as the 70 percent of people with disabilities who don’t have jobs. Not only will this spur economic

growth, but it also will provide greater opportunities for students to pursue higher

education and training or to enter higher-wage careers.

Federal Math and Science Education Initiatives

K–12 Programs

In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Department of Education created math and science

professional development programs, consortia and clearinghouses. Meanwhile the

National Science Foundation broadened its math and science education focus to include all students—instead of just top students—and it made substantial investments in curriculum development, pre-service and in-service teacher education and

informal science education, among others.

Then, in 2002, President Bush proposed the No Child Left Behind initiative to

fundamentally reform elementary and secondary education. Among other things,

this law requires assessments in reading and math for all students in grades 3–8

by the 2005–2006 school year and in science for students by the 2007–2008 school

year. Students would be expected to make annual progress toward proficiency in

each of these subjects. Failure to do so would result in the school’s designation as

‘‘in need of improvement’’ and corrective actions, ranging from additional funds to

school reconstitution. Other provisions call for all children to be taught by highly

qualified teachers.

In response to national concerns regarding too many teachers teaching out of

field, too few students taking advanced course work and too few schools offering

challenging curricula, No Child Left Behind also called for the creation of a new

Math and Science Partnership Program to unite the activities of higher education,

school systems and business in support of improved math and science proficiency

for K–12 students and teachers.

Ultimately, two programs were created. The first established a competitive, meritbased grant program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), as part of the NSF

Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368). This program awards grants to partnerships between institutions of higher education and one or more school districts to

improve math and science education. Funds are used to develop innovative reform

programs that, if proven successful, would be the key to large-scale reform at the

State level. The second program was housed at the Department of Education and

was created by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–110). Although similarly titled, the programs were created to be complementary to—not duplicative of—

6

each other. Specifically, NSF was to fund innovative programs to develop and test

new models of education reform, thereby remedying a lack of knowledge about math

and science research, while the Department of Education would broadly implement

and disseminate new teaching materials, curricula and training programs. The FY

2004 omnibus appropriation would provide the Education and the NSF partnership

programs with $150 million and $140 million respectively.

Undergraduate Programs

In addition to creating the Math and Science Partnership Program at NSF, the

National Science Foundation Authorization Act sought to address the decline in the

Nation’s technical workforce and to improve undergraduate math and science education. Among other things, the bill established the Tech Talent Act (now known

as the Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics Technology Expansion

Program, or STEP) to increase the number of U.S. students majoring in science,

math, engineering and technology. Specifically, STEP provides funding and rewards

to colleges and universities that develop creative and effective recruitment and retention strategies that bring more students into science, mathematics, and engineering programs. The FY 2004 appropriation for STEP is expected to be $24.85 million.

The bill also created the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, which awards grants

to colleges and universities to award scholarships to top math and science majors

or minors in return for a commitment to teach at the elementary or secondary

school level. The FY 2004 appropriation is expected to be $7.95 million.

6. Questions for Witnesses

Mr. Cassidy

• How can we attract, educate and retain the critical mass of talent necessary

to keep the State of Georgia—and the country as a whole—at the forefront

of research, development and ground-breaking advances in science and technology? In addition to providing a technically literate workforce, why is it important to improve public support and understanding of math and science?

• How do we avoid a disconnect between the jobs we want to keep in the U.S.

and our workforce’s ability to perform those jobs? How is the State of Georgia

working with K–12 schools as well as colleges, universities and training programs to avoid that disconnect?

• How can we ensure that we provide sufficient opportunities to allow students

and researchers, educators and employees to become and then remain current

and competitive in our rapidly evolving world?

Dr. Ohme

• What do you feel is the single, most important step that the Federal Government should take to improve K–12 math and science education?

• How can we grow, educate, attract and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineering students? Based on the involvement you have had

with math and science education programs at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation as well as those in the State of

Georgia, what are the most important and effective components of these programs?

• How can K–12-higher education partnerships reduce the need for remediation, promote interest in math and science education, and reduce the number of dropouts, especially for under-represented populations?

Ms. Purcell

• What sparked your interest in math and science? Was it a teacher or a class?

Or was it something outside your formal education, like a trip to a science

museum, a significant scientific event (a shuttle launch or a discovery), or

interactions with a parent or relative?

• What made your math and science classes interesting to you? How could we

help increase interest in math and science for other students?

• In thinking about the many different subjects you could study in college, why

did you choose the way you did? Were you aware of the types of jobs that

are available to students with a strong math or science background? What

would you like to do with your degree after graduation?

7

Mr. McClure

• Based on the involvement you have had with math and science education programs at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation as well as those in the State of Georgia, what are the most important

and effective components of these programs?

• How can we spark a greater student interest in math and science education?

What can we do to ensure that student interest in math and science does not

wane as they progress through our formal system of education?

• What challenges do you face in improving student achievement in math and

science education? How can parents, businesses, the community, and the government support you in your efforts to raise student proficiency in math and

science?

Mr. Hill

• What is the overall state of math and science education in Georgia? Why is

it important for all students to achieve proficiency in these subjects, as envisioned in No Child Left Behind?

• Based on the involvement you have had with math and science education programs at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation as well as those in the State of Georgia, what are the most important

and effective components of these programs?

• What have you learned about the ability—or the inability—of K–12-higher

education partnerships, such as those created by No Child Left Behind, to reduce the need for remediation, to promote interest in math and science education, and to reduce the number of dropouts, especially for under-represented

populations?

8

Mr. GINGREY. Good morning everybody. I would like to call the

meeting of the House Science Committee, the Full Committee

meeting to order.

We will begin the meeting with our presentation of the colors.

[Color guard.]

[Pledge of Allegiance.]

Mr. ARNSON. Thank you all for coming and joining us this morning. At this time, I would like to introduce Representative Phil

Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you very much, Principal Arnson.

[Applause.]

Mr. GINGREY. It is great to be here today in my District at Campbell High School.

What I would like to do is just describe to you the format of what

we’re doing. I want you to know that we are going to—this is a formal field hearing of the full Committee on Science of the United

States Congress and the written statements that are presented by

our panelists and the questions and answers, all of that will be

part of the permanent Congressional Record. So I want to say to

the people that are here this morning, that are participating, make

sure you put this date. I think today is—I should remember and

know that today is January the 23rd because tomorrow my daughter is getting married and I know that is on January the 24th. But

you put this date down in your Blackberry so you can tell your

grandchildren one of these days to look it up in the Congressional

Record, you were part of a Full Committee hearing of the Science

Committee. So welcome one and all.

I hope everybody in attendance knows who I am. If you do not,

I may be in a little bit of trouble come next November the 2nd. So

I am not going to tell you anything about myself. But it is certainly

a great honor for me to chair this Full Committee hearing of the

Science Committee with one of my freshmen colleagues on the

Committee, and that is the Honorable Representative Lincoln

Davis. He is a Member of Congress from the great State of Tennessee, the Volunteer State. He is from a county that I did not

know whether to pronounce Pall Mall or Pell Mell, Tennessee, but

he reminded me that it was Pall Mall. So I was at least halfway

in between and we finally got it right.

Representative Davis, like myself, was elected a year ago to the

Congress. He is the former mayor of Byrdstown, Tennessee. So he,

like me, kind of started locally. I think most of you know that I was

a member of the Marietta City School Board. That was my first

taste of politics, and I think Congressman Davis would agree with

me that all politics eventually—it starts local and it ends local. I

think we are very proud of that. He and I—I have to tell you all—

you can figure it out later exactly what the age is, but we are about

the same age. He has actually been married a little bit longer than

I have. He and his wife Linda, I believe, have been married 40

years, and she was his high school sweetheart. Now, I want to tell

you a little bit about Congressman Davis, and I do not know what

the significance of this is. But his first name is Lincoln, her first

name is Linda and they have three daughters, Lorissa, Lynn and

Libby. Now, I think that is called a bit of an alliteration. And now

9

with five grandchildren, Ashton, Alexia, Andrew, Austin and Adam,

I will let Congressman Davis explain all of that to us.

He is a farmer and a builder and developer. He actually—his

farmland was purchased from Alvin York, the great World War I

hero whose name we all recognize. He has lived in Fentress County

all of his life and is a hometown boy and a great member of the

Congress.

I will tell you another thing about our committee. The Science

Committee is fairly equally balanced between Republicans and

Democrats. Of course, when you have the majority there is always

at least one more Republican than Democrat. But it is a very unbiased, bipartisan committee. In fact, Congressman Davis’ colleague

from Tennessee, Representative Bart Gordon, has just been named

Ranking Member of the Committee. So it is with a great deal of

pleasure that I am here today having this committee hearing with

my colleague from Tennessee, Representative Lincoln Davis. I will

turn it over to him in just a minute for his opening remarks.

First of all, let me say thank you, Principal Arnson, for your

warm welcome and Major Moyers and the Army Junior ROTC—I

am very proud of you—for the presentation of our colors, and Chad

Smith for leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I know his dad,

who is here this morning, and a Council Member from the City of

Smyrna, is very proud of Chad.

It is my pleasure to welcome all of you this morning to this very

important House Science Committee hearing titled Fueling the

High Tech Workforce with Math and Science Education. I know

many of the students in attendance are AP math and science students, and possibly some International Baccalaureate, and we are

very proud that you are with us this morning.

I am excited about holding the hearing in Cobb County, and

again, Principal Arnson, I want to thank Campbell High School for

so graciously hosting this event. And I want to thank our witnesses

for being here to testify before the Committee. I look forward to

hearing your insights and your opinions. Also, as I stated, welcome

my colleague, Congressman Davis.

Today, we will examine various strategies underway in Georgia

and nationally to improve student achievement and teacher performance in math and science education, and how a well educated

science and technology workforce enhances job creation and economic vitality.

The importance of elementary, secondary and post secondary

math and science education to Georgia and the Nation’s high tech

economy is apparent. Georgia’s science and technology workforce is

ranked 11th in the Nation and it is continuing to grow. Its biotechnology workforce is ranked ninth. The United States Department of Labor projects that new jobs requiring science, engineering

and technical training will increase four times higher than the average job growth nationally. Clearly, workers require a solid academic foundation in science and math to succeed in this high tech

workplace and to remain competitive with students from other nations in our global economy. Right now we are not. Studies have

shown over the last several years that compared to other developed

industrial nations we are behind. We are particularly behind in

math and science.

10

Only two out of every 100 high school graduates will ever obtain

an engineering or a technical degree. Let me repeat that. Only two

out of every 100 high school graduates will ever obtain an engineering or technical degree. Consequently, only nine out of 1000

women and eight out of 1000 minorities will ever obtain an engineering degree. Worse, most of the graduating class in America’s

high schools are either not prepared or not sufficiently motivated

to pursue advanced study in science, math, engineering or technology fields. According to the National Assessment of Educational

Progress, fewer than B of all United States students in grades 4,

8 and 12 performed at or above proficient levels in math and

science, while B—fully B performed below basic levels.

Tuesday night, in his State of the Union address, President Bush

stressed the importance of promoting quality math and science

education when he announced the Jobs for the 21st Century plan.

Among other initiatives that will help better prepare workers for

jobs in the new millennium, the plan calls for a $120 million increase for a mathematics and science partnership program. That

program establishes partnerships between high schools and post

secondary technical, vocational colleges and two-year colleges to increase achievement in both math and science for all secondary students.

While there are no quick fixes, we can take steps now to re-examine how teachers teach and students learn math and science.

Failure to address our problems will impact Georgia’s economic

growth and consequently the economic welfare and scientific discovery of the Nation as a whole.

We will hear testimony this morning from witnesses with expertise across the broad spectrum of this issue. We’ll hear from a student who plans to use the knowledge and education that she has

obtained in math and science and pursue a career in medicine; a

teacher who has dedicated his life to fueling students with a passion for science; an administrator that strives to implement the

best policies for educating Georgia’s students; a professor who

seeks to meet the future challenges by encouraging and inspiring

the very best in science, math and technology education for all students; and finally, a business leader who leverages Georgia’s research capabilities into economic development results. I thank you

and certainly look forward to hearing your testimony.

I would like now to introduce to you Congressman Lincoln Davis

for his opening remarks. Congressman Davis.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Thank you, Principal Arnson, for your warm welcome, and Major Moyers, the

Junior ROTC, for the presentation of our colors, pledge, and National Anthem.

It is my pleasure to welcome all of you this morning to this very important

Science Research Subcommittee hearing, ‘‘Fueling the High Tech Workforce With

Math and Science Education.’’ I am excited about holding this hearing in Cobb

County and want to thank Principal Arnson and Campbell High School for hosting

this event. I want to thank our witnesses for being here to testify before the Committee, I look forward to hearing your insights and opinions. Also, I want to welcome my colleague, Congressman Lincoln Davis from Tennessee, to the great State

of Georgia and thank him for attending this hearing.

11

Today, we will examine various strategies underway in Georgia and nationally to

improve student achievement and teacher performance in math and science education, and how a well-educated science and technology workforce enhances job creation and economic vitality.

The importance of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary math and science

education to Georgia and the Nation’s high tech economy is apparent. Georgia’s

science and technology workforce is ranked 11th in the Nation and continues to

grow, it’s biotechnology workforce ranked 9th. The U.S. Department of Labor

projects that new jobs requiring science, engineering, and technical training will increase four times higher than average job growth nationally. Clearly, workers require a solid academic foundation in science and math to succeed in this high tech

workplace and to remain competitive with students from other nations in our global

economy.

However, only two out of every one hundred high school graduates will ever obtain an engineering or technical degree. Consequently, only nine out of a thousand

women and eight out of a thousand minorities will ever obtain an engineering degree. Worse, most of the graduating class in America’s high schools are either not

prepared or not sufficiently motivated to pursue advanced study in science, math,

engineering, or technology fields. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, fewer than one-third of all U.S. students in grades four, eight,

and twelve performed at or above proficient levels while a third performed below

basic levels.

While there are no quick fixes, we can take steps now to re-examine how teachers

teach and students learn math and science. Failure to address our problems will impact Georgia’s economic growth and, consequently, the economic welfare and scientific discovery of the Nation as a whole.

We will hear testimony from witnesses with expertise across the broad spectrum

of this issue. We’ll hear from a student who plans to use the knowledge and education that she has obtained in math and science and pursue a career in medicine;

a teacher who has dedicated his life to fueling students with a passion for science;

an administrator that strives to implement the best policies for educating Georgia’s

students; a professor who seeks to meet the future challenges by encouraging and

inspiring the best in science, math, and technology education for all students; and

a business leader who leverages Georgia’s research capabilities into economic development results. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Congressman Gingrey, it is certainly good to be here

in Georgia this morning. We drove down yesterday afternoon from

Pall Mall to Jamestown and then traveled Highway 127 to 111

which connects the southern part of Tennessee to the northern part

where I live. It is an Appalachian Highway. I live in the part of

Tennessee that we call Appalachia, and often times instead of accepting the words that they call us, being a ridgerunner or a hillbilly or a redneck, we have coined a new phrase for those of us who

live there called being an Appalachian-American.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. We have southeasterners and northeasterners and

midwesterners, so I assume if you live in the mountains of Tennessee or Georgia, and it is the Appalachian Mountains, then we

have a heritage there that we should all be proud of. But included

in that heritage is a heritage in many cases of a lack of a public

education or of academic achievement, especially through the turn

of the last century and through the early part of the 20th century.

We are seeing changes being made now in each state, here in Georgia as well as in Tennessee and many southern states, to recognize

that a good education brings about a good economy. I think because

of our public education, America today probably has the best economy of any country, in my opinion, throughout civilization. Education has made a difference in all of us.

Thanks for having the hearing today, for allowing me to be a

part, for being here.

12

Certainly I have had an opportunity to see two of my daughters

married off and I have those five grandchildren and I am not sure

exactly how the names came. Our first daughter, Lorissa, came as

a store-bought name from a book. The rest of them, Mrs. Davis just

liked them, so that is why we named them the names they have.

And our three daughters live, not in the same hometown, so I am

not sure why they started out with the A’s.

How many children do you have?

Mr. GINGREY. We have—is my mic on? I think we have—I know

we have——

[Laughter.]

Mr. GINGREY. —four children and three grandchildren.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. I have you beat in the grandchildren line, as we call

them back home, those little tricycle motors. We have you beat

there, but we have three daughters. I commend you tomorrow on

the wedding that will occur. Is that the last one?

Mr. GINGREY. That is the last one for awhile, yes.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. I guess we can get down to business then. I want to

thank you for inviting me. Certainly we are here today to discuss

how to fuel the high tech pipeline, how to improve math and

science education and how to promote better diversity among our

math and science students, graduates and post graduates and faculty.

I want to welcome those who are witnesses today, the students,

the teachers, the policy directors, administrators, all interested in

the future outlook of math and science education.

We have two major concerns that we will discuss today and those

who will give the testimony will allude to that. Performance of

schools in preparing students for careers in science and technology

being one of those.

The National Education Association recently released in the fall

of 2003 expenditures for students in public K through 12 schools.

Georgia ranked 18th, spending over $8000 per student, a 5.3 percent increase from 2002. I am from Tennessee. Sadly we ranked

number 45 at $6048 expenditure per student per year, reflecting

only a 1.7 percent increase last year. Over 40 percent of the freshmen at public two-year colleges and 13 percent of private four-year

colleges are enrolled in remedial courses. Approximately 35 percent

of the companies provide remedial math education for their employees. Think about that a moment. They are hiring someone that

supposedly was trained in a certain discipline to work in a company and almost 35 percent of those in math have to have remedial

courses. This indicates that students are not being sufficiently prepared in science and math.

Some serious demographics. This week Dr. Donald Nelson of MIT

released results from a survey of the top 50 departments in each

of 14 science and engineering disciplines as ranked by the National

Science Foundation according to research funds expended. This

comprehensive analysis of tenured and tenure track faculty shows

that females and minorities are significantly under-represented.

There are few tenured and tenure track women faculty in these deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

partments and research universities even though a growing number of women are completing with their Ph.D.s.

Under-represented minority faculty. Women are almost nonexistent in science and engineering departments at research universities. In the computer science department surveys, there were

zero black, Hispanic or Native Americans tenured or tenure track

women faculty. The percentage of women who earn Bachelor degrees in science and engineering continues to increase, but they are

rapidly finding themselves without female faculty role models.

There are few female professors in science and engineering. The

percentage of women among full professors range from only 3 to 15

percent.

I live in an area that is close to Tennessee Tech. The Georgia

Tech folks probably recognize that school as being one of the better

technical schools in the southeast. Georgia Tech, most here in this

area would say, probably ranks number one. But certainly Tennessee Tech, we would rank very close to that, especially in engineering and in the sciences. We realize in our area, as you realize

here at Georgia Tech, that without the technical training it will be

extremely difficult to be competitive in what we will be calling a

high tech workforce in the future.

A math and science education is important to me. It is important

to my constituents in Tennessee in the Fourth District and it is extremely important to our nation as a whole if we are going to continue to remain competitive in the world. It has been said that education lies at the heart of this Administration’s Invest in America’s

Future. The President is committed to education. How well our nation prospers in the years ahead will depend in part on how well

we develop scientific and technical talent in our children.

For fiscal year 2002 the budget of the National Institutes of

Health, our nation’s primary funding mechanism of academic biomedical research, was increased by 14 percent; for fiscal year 2004

however, there will be likely only about a three to four percent increase, in many cases maybe bringing biomedical programs to a

screeching halt. The math and physical sciences are even in more

dire straits. Without financial backing, the potential for growth in

these areas is limited.

How can we do more with less money and what is the solution?

Maybe we will hear that today. I know that much effort is underway in Georgia and throughout the Nation to improve K through

12 science and math education. I hope today the hearings will highlight some of these efforts and will suggest ways to learn from and

expand the most promising ideals and approaches to education reform.

Again, I congratulate you, Chairman Gingrey, for calling this

hearing because there are few subjects of greater importance and

consideration of this subcommittee. We are fortunate to have witnesses here today who have a broad range of experience and talent.

I certainly look forward to your testimony and your discussion.

I want to congratulate this high school—I see you are four percent—within the top four percent in the Nation. I represent Campbell County, so I feel at home. Livingston, Tennessee is on the way

to where I catch the plane to Nashville. So I feel like I am at home

14

in Livingston, Tennessee or in Campbell County when I see these

names.

Thank you.

Mr. GINGREY. Congressman Davis, thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Mr. GINGREY. You know, in my opening remarks I commented

that we have a very bipartisan committee, and I want to say one

other thing. Those who might think that Republicans have a corner

on traditional family values obviously have not met Congressman

Lincoln Davis from Tennessee, who has been married, as I said

earlier, to his childhood sweetheart Linda for 40 years. He’s got

three children and five grandchildren and I think that’s a pretty

darned good record. So this morning I want to give Congressman

Davis a little memento from the great State of Georgia. This peach,

Congressman Davis, I know he might prefer a tobacco leaf.

[Applause.]

Mr. DAVIS. I can assure you as a youngster growing up, the farm

folks would have an old pickup truck or a ton and a half truck—

that is not a real heavy truck. It is not a tractor and trailer. They

would come down here and buy peaches and then barter them out

to the neighbors. The Georgia peach along about the first of August—the Alberta I think is what they called them—was the best

freestone peach you could find in the world. So thank you for that.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you again, Congressman Davis.

We will go ahead now—and I want to introduce to you our five

panelists who will be giving their testimony. Once again, I remind

all that their written remarks will be part of the permanent Congressional Record of this full Science Committee hearing.

First of all, I want to introduce to you Ms. Rachel Purcell, who

obviously needs no introduction to the Campbell Spartans. She is

the valedictorian of the senior class and hopes to pursue a career

in veterinary medicine.

Next is Mr. Randy McClure. Again, Randy here at Campbell

needs no introduction. He is a teacher, and actually more than just

a teacher, the Chair of the Department of Science at Campbell

High School, which, by the way, has the prestigious International

Baccalaureate Program, the most rigorous academic program in the

Nation, if not the world, as it is an international program. I think

I am correct in saying this: We have that program also at Marietta

High School as part of that system. This is the only venue of maybe

14 high schools in the Cobb County system that has the International Baccalaureate Program. I know teachers like Mr. McClure

are very proud of that fact.

Mr. Martez Hill is the Policy director for the Georgia Department

of Education, working very, very closely with our State School Superintendent Kathy Cox. Prior to coming to the Department Mr.

Hill worked as an analyst in the Governor’s Office of Planning and

Budget. I guess he decided that that was a little rough these last

two years and maybe the work with the Department of Education

could be a little more fulfilling. I know it has been a tough time

not only in the State of Georgia with the budget crunch but everywhere else in the Nation. He received his Bachelors degree in political science and his masters degree in public policy from prestigious

Emory University.

15

And then Dr. Paul Ohme is the Director for the Center for Education in Science, Mathematics and Computing—the acronym is

CEISMC—at my alma mater, Georgia Institute of Technology. Lincoln, I should have brought you a hat. Prior to joining CEISMC,

Dr. Ohme served as the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and the head of the Department of Computer Science at

Northwestern Louisiana University. Dr. Ohme also taught mathematics and computer science at various colleges and universities,

including—and I know Congressman Davis is not going to want to

hear this—Clemson. Did anybody watch the Peach Bowl?

Mr. DAVIS. I did not.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GINGREY. Congressman Davis said he did not.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GINGREY. He wants to know when is it going to be played.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GINGREY. Clemson, Mississippi, Franklin and Marshall.

And then finally Mr. Michael Cassidy, the President of the Georgia Research Alliance. Before joining the Alliance Mr. Cassidy

managed the Advanced Technology Development Center, ATDC,

based at again, Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the Nation’s

oldest technology incubators. He also worked for IBM where he

held various staff and management positions. In addition to his

work at the Alliance, Mr. Cassidy consults with several states on

issues of science and technology policy, and he represents Georgia

on the Southern Technology Council and the Southern Governors’

Association Advisory Committee on research, development and

technology.

We have a great list of participants on this committee and I look

forward to their testimony. We will start with Ms. Rachel Purcell.

Rachel.

[Applause.]

STATEMENT OF RACHEL PURCELL, VALEDICTORIAN, CLASS

OF 2004, CAMPBELL HIGH SCHOOL, SMYRNA, GEORGIA

Ms. PURCELL. Mr. Chairman and esteemed Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Rachel Purcell and I am a senior in the International

Baccalaureate Program here at Campbell High School. I have attended school in the Cobb County School District since kindergarten. The IB program is a magnet school and pulls from all of

Cobb County, however, I currently reside in the Campbell High

School District.

I have always been a curious individual and math and science

have provided a means with which to satisfy my curiosity. The person who sparked my interest in both math and science was my

fifth grade teacher. That year, I began to look forward to the afternoon time that was designated for science. In this class, we were

expected to create many projects, including a wind-powered model

car, an invention of our own design that we could actually use in

our daily lives; and a task that I spent the majority of the year

dreading, we dissected a cow’s eye.

Looking back on these and other various projects which were

completed at a time when lab write-ups and data charts were not

16

necessary, I realize that I truly enjoyed the exposure to exploring

the world around me. I became more interested in how and why

things are the way they are because I was given an opportunity

early in life to do more than read a science textbook and actually

have some hands on experience being a scientist. I believe that this

early opportunity to explore, without the complications of a larger

high school class or the grade pressure of GPAs, led me to enjoy

science at a younger age and that my positive attitude toward it

has continued to affect my high school endeavors.

As I entered high school I was already on an advanced math

track, having taken Algebra 1 and geometry before ninth grade.

This advancement kept me interested and made it easier for me to

reach the more advanced levels of math offered in my school while

still only taking one semester of math a year. In my science curriculum, I was given the opportunity to take biology, physics and

chemistry before I entered my junior year as part of my enrollment

in the International Baccalaureate Program. Having a basic background in these three areas has made each successive science class

easier and more enjoyable because the curriculums inevitably overlapped. These classes also gave me enough exposure to all three

areas of science to allow me to make an educated decision when it

was time to choose the area I would concentrate on in my junior

and senior years of the IB program.

I found all these classes, both math and science, to be most enjoyable when I learned something and was then shown where the

principle or concept affected my everyday life. I also found that

open-ended labs, a standard part of the IB curriculum, in which we

design and plan our own experiments, teach me more than those

which are dictated by a teacher. Although they are generally more

work for me as a student, I find them more enjoyable and satisfying because I feel that I have truly accomplished something when

I am able to draw conclusions from my work.

In considering my future endeavors and career plans, I am not

entirely sure what I want to pursue. I am currently considering a

career in veterinary medicine. My interest in this area arises not

only from the fact that I have always loved animals, but also from

the fact that I feel medicine is one of the most practical and least

abstract applications of my scientific knowledge. In the medical

field, I will be able to use my strong scientific and mathematical

background and also pursue a career that allows me to interact

with and directly improve the lives of other people. The immediate

and concrete applications of medical knowledge make it more attractive, applicable and interesting to me. However, even if my career plans change as I move through college, having a basis in all

three major sciences at a high school level and having taken advanced levels of both biology and physics will provide a solid background for whatever I choose to do.

In conclusion, I feel that my own interest in math and science

exists because I was exposed to them in a hands-on way as a

younger child, and that having a basic exposure to more than one

type of science has contributed to my success at more advanced levels. I believe that interest in the more advanced math and science

classes offered in high school and college can be generated and augVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
17

mented by exposing younger kids to the more enjoyable aspects of

both math and science.

Thank you.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Purcell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RACHEL PURCELL

Mr. Chairman and esteemed Members of the Committee, I would like to thank

you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Rachel Purcell and I am a senior

in the International Baccalaureate Program here at Campbell High School. I have

attended school in the Cobb County School District since kindergarten. The IB program is a magnet school and pulls from all of Cobb County, however, I currently

reside in the Campbell High School district.

I have always been a curious individual and math and science have provided a

means with which to satisfy my curiosity. The person who sparked my interest in

both math and science was my fifth grade teacher. That year, I began to look forward to the afternoon time that was designated for science. In this class, we were

expected to create many projects, including a wind powered model car, an invention

of our own design that we could actually use in our daily lives, and a task that I

spent the majority of the year dreading: we dissected a cow’s eye.

Looking back on these and other various projects, which were completed at a time

when lab write-ups and data charts were not necessary, I realize that I truly enjoyed the exposure to exploring the world around me. I became more interested in

how and why things are the way they are because I was given an opportunity early

in life to do more than read a science textbook and actually have some hands on

experience being a ‘‘scientist.’’ I believe that this early opportunity to explore, without the complications of a larger high school class or the grade pressure of GPAs,

led me to enjoy science at a younger age and that my positive attitude toward it

has continued to effect my high school endeavors.

As I entered high school I was already on an advanced math track, having taken

Algebra I and Geometry before ninth grade. This advancement kept me interested

and made it easier for me to reach the more advanced levels of math offered in my

school while still only take one semester of math a year. In my science curriculum,

I was given the opportunity to take biology, physics, and chemistry before I entered

my junior year as part of my enrollment in the International Baccalaureate Program. Having a basic background in these three areas has made each successive

science class easier and more enjoyable because the curriculums inevitably overlapped. These classes also gave me enough exposure to all three areas of science to

allow me to make an educated decision when it was time to choose the area I would

concentrate on in my junior and senior years of the IB program.

I found all these classes, both math and science, to be most enjoyable when I

learned something and was then shown where the principle or concept affected my

everyday life. I also found that open-ended labs, a standard part of the IB curriculum, in which we design and plan our own experiments, teach me more than

those which are dictated by a teacher. Although they are generally more work for

me as a student, I find them more enjoyable and satisfying because I feel that I

have truly accomplished something when I am able to draw conclusions from my

work.

In considering my future endeavors and career plans, I am not entirely sure what

I want to pursue. I am currently considering a career in veterinary medicine. My

interest in this area arises not only from the fact that I have always loved animals

but also from the fact that I feel medicine is one of the most practical and least

abstract applications of my scientific knowledge. In the medical field, I will be able

to use my strong scientific and mathematical background and also pursue a career

that allows me to interact with and directly improve the lives of other people. The

immediate and concrete applications of medical knowledge make it more attractive,

applicable, and interesting to me. However, even if my career plans change as I

move through college, having a basis in all three major sciences at a high school

level, and having taken advanced levels of both biology and physics will provide a

solid background for whatever I choose to do.

In conclusion, I feel that my own interest in math and science exists because I

was exposed to them in a hands-on way as a younger child, and that having a basic

exposure to more than one type of science has contributed to my success at more

advanced levels. I believe that interest in the more advanced math and science

classes offered in high school and college can be generated and augmented by exposing younger kids to the more enjoyable aspects of both math and science.

18

BIOGRAPHY FOR RACHEL PURCHELL

Rachel Purcell is currently a senior in the International Baccalaureate Program

at Campbell High School in Smyrna, Georgia. She resides in the Campbell High

School district and attended King Springs Elementary School and Griffin Middle

School before moving on to Campbell. Rachel is currently ranked to graduate as valedictorian of the senior class and is a semi-finalist in the National Merit Scholarship.

Throughout high school Rachel has participated in various activities. This year

she was co-captain of Campbell’s Varsity Slow-pitch Softball team and is currently

co-president of her church’s eighty-member youth choir. She is an active member of

her school’s drama club and theatre productions. Rachel also enjoys playing the

piano and has been certified by the state level piano guild.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Rachel.

We will next hear from Mr. Randy McClure.

STATEMENT OF RANDY O. MCCLURE, TEACHER AND DEPARTMENT CHAIR FOR SCIENCE, CAMPBELL HIGH SCHOOL,

SMYRNA, GEORGIA

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, based on my involvement with

science education over the past 18 years at the State level, I believe

that we have not quite had the opportunity to really follow science

19

projects to their end. In science we develop laws and concepts that

serve as our guiding tenets based on our ability to test things and

get data from multiple trials in various places under the same conditions. Unfortunately, we do not always get the chance to produce

data or even accumulate enough data to really see what impact our

efforts have had.

I believe I can say with all confidence that no true secondary

science teacher minds at all being asked to deliver the constantly

changing information that is being developed in the many fields of

science. Especially included in that idea is the fact that many

teachers love the opportunities presented by the infusion of new

technologies that ought to allow greater achievement by eliminating some menial aspects of science discovery. For example, it is

certainly more beneficial for a chemistry student working on determining the pH levels of materials, to be able to use probes that can

make those determinations to two significant digits rather than relying on indicator paper to turn pink or blue and then guessing

about the actual pH level. The students who can use the probes

would be light years ahead of those still using indicator paper.

Some of the reasons for stating such marked differences in techniques to achieve similar opportunities to collect data are as follows: Probe data collection can be pinpointed and graphed by that

probe. That information can then be transferred into a PowerPoint

presentation so that students could compare results and observe

data changes while making incredible analyses of their data. Those

students with the indicator paper would be unable to get to the

deeper inquiry into the laboratory assignment because of the inflexibility of the materials employed.

Herein lies the great dichotomy of science education and in particular how it is affected by technology. Until there are no areas

where students are still relying on outdated methods in science

classes across our state and country, the potential for some of our

brightest and most gifted future scientists, engineers and those

who would aspire to high-tech careers will be at best hindered and

in many cases simply stymied because of the lack of access to the

latest materials.

Teachers must be able to constantly receive training in methods

that are cutting edge. The roadblocks to this training should be

eliminated. It should be easy for certified teachers to gain access

to top notch universities during summers or during the school year

to constantly make themselves aware of the cutting edge applications of the concepts taught in some basic science classes. From the

prototype glasses that can allow one to translate one language into

another by simply putting on the glasses to the pill that cannot

only alert parents of pregnancy, but allow them to know if their offspring will be predisposed to over 3000 diseases or disorders, these

types of discoveries and more must be made available to today’s

science teacher and the technology commensurate with these developments in order to make an indelible impact on aspiring scientific

students.

We can spark greater interest in science by not allowing the materials we use to be outdated by the fast developing fields that the

students are being introduced to. Again, the analogy would serve

well if we considered students eager to learn about boating who

20

were introduced to boating through different vehicles. One group

receives an old rowboat, while another group receives the latest inboard motorboat with depth finders and weather monitors. Both

could get to certain destinations, but surely those who have the advantages of more sophisticated instruments could advance further

and quicker to the point of interest. Also, since some of the menial

navigation duties could be eliminated and the mode of operation by

powering the boat rather than oars, the students with the updated

boat would be able to make greater observations during the course

of their trip.

From the beginning of kindergarten, students come to us with inquisitive minds. What we do with them makes all the difference in

the world. For example, at Russell Elementary here in Cobb County, elementary students work all year long with computers to meet

their annual NASA simulated launch date in May. Many hours

after school and ongoing assignments are completed so students

can track the path of their space shuttle, choose alternate launch

sites if the weather is bad, monitor every aspect of the shuttle’s security and maintenance during the trip and determine where it

lands upon its return. This happens in the fifth grade and there

is a great partnership between the community, school, staff and

parents. But if your child does not attend Russell Elementary or

have Mr. Chris Laster as their science teacher, he or she may not

have that wonderfully inspiring experience.

As students leave elementary schools and go on to middle schools

and high schools, there should be some comparable programs that

allow for exciting experiences that will cause them to want to be

involved in more science. Again, depending on where they are and

what they are exposed to, this may or may not happen.

Perhaps we should allow our classrooms to become more inquiry

based and less test oriented so that many of our tried and true best

practices could take effect and give us an opportunity to collect

some data to really examine our results. No one minds accountability, but perhaps we have moved so much to testing that we

have left no real time for creating atmospheres that will inspire

and generate interest in science fields.

The challenges of teaching science are complex. First, due to the

advances that are vastly changing the field of science the curriculum has to be more accountable in that it addresses what we

want students to know and eliminates trivial pursuits posing as

standardized tests with little relevance to the emerging high-tech

world.

Secondly, students must be given the opportunity to learn without the constant impending threat of evaluation that covers too

much and are not markers of accountability but instead simply indicate a lack of continuity between theoretical and practical applications of science education. Also, parents must be mentioned in

the equation for success in creating science and high-tech career

candidates for our economy. Teachers are constantly reminded of

all their shortcomings but rarely does anyone challenge parents to

do their part in helping to make sure that their child is successful

in the science world.

As a student at Morehouse College, when I found myself stuck

with problems in my organic chemistry classes or advanced bioVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

chemistry classes, I would call home to my great-grandmother, who

raised me, for help, and she was able to give me what I needed to

complete my task. She only had a seventh grade education, yet she

saw to it that my three younger brothers and I not only attended

college but graduated with three of the four us being in science and

technology related fields. Sometimes parents shy away because

they may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with technological advances. As a teacher and as living proof, I would like for someone

to really hold parents accountable in a nonvoting type way so that

they realize the real significance of their presence in their child’s

science education. Even if they have to learn some things with

their child, it would be important for them to make that effort over

and over again. Perhaps schools will also have to have science

classes for parents to make sure that the message gets across.

Businesses, the community and our government could really help

in that regard. Also, if those three groups would make direct contact with science classrooms so that the red tape that sometimes

hinders great ideas could be eliminated, we could make tremendous strides toward progress.

Finally, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request

that you remember that every time new marching orders are

passed down from our leaders, there are some teachers in science

education who enact those orders, even if they are in the second

or third years of previous marching orders. Not unlike the brave

men and women of our country who are sworn to protect our flag

and our way of life, there are those, I believe, who have been called

to deliver science instruction to the students of our country. They

attempt to complete this task regardless of all the variables that

could affect their ability to complete that task. While we would all

agree, and most work constantly to do just that, we do need those

sending down our new marching orders to know that we need to

have the broad support of parents, businesses, the many communities and yes, our government if we are to continue to be the

world’s envy of technology and its future development.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDY O. MCCLURE

Mr. Chairman,

Based on my involvement with Science education over the past 18 years at the

State level, I believe we have not quite had the opportunity to really follow Science

projects to their end. In Science we develop laws and concepts that serve as out

guiding tenets based on our ability to test things and get data from multiple trials

in various places under the same conditions. Unfortunately, we don’t always get the

chance to produce data or even accumulate enough data to really see what impact

our efforts have had. I believe I could say with all confidence that no true secondary

science teacher minds at all being asked to deliver the constantly changing information that is being developed in the many fields of Science. Especially included in

that idea is the fact that many teachers love the opportunities presented by the infusion of new technologies that ought to allow greater achievement by eliminating

some menial aspects of Science discovery. For example, it is certainly more beneficial for a chemistry student working on determining the pH levels of materials,

to be able to use probes that can make those determinants to two significant digits

rather than relying on indicator paper to turn pink or blue and then guessing about

the actual pH level. The students who can use the probes would be light years

ahead of those still using indicator paper. Some of the reasons for stating such

marked differences in techniques to achieve similar opportunities to collect data are

as follows: Probe data collection can be pinpointed and graphed by the probe. That

22

information can then be transferred into a PowerPoint presentation so that students

could compare results and observe data changes while making incredible analyses

of their data. Those students with the indicator paper would be unable to get to

deeper inquiry into the laboratory assignment because of the inflexibility of the materials employed.

Herein lies the great dichotomy of Science education and in particular how it is

affected by technology. Until there are no areas where students are still relying on

outdated methods in Science classes across our state and country, the potential for

some of our brightest and most gifted future scientists, engineers, and those who

would aspire to high-tech careers, will be at best hindered and in many cases, simply stymied because of the lack of access to the latest materials.

Teachers must be able to constantly receive training in methods that are cutting

edge. The roadblocks to this training should be eliminated. It should be easy for certified teachers to gain access to top-notch universities during summers or during the

school; to constantly make themselves aware of the cutting edge applications of the

concepts taught in basic Science classes. From the prototype glasses that can allow

one to translate one language into another one simply by putting on the glasses to

the pill that cannot only alert parents of pregnancy determination but even allow

them to know if their offspring would be predisposed to over 3000 diseases or disorders. These types of discoveries and more must be made available to today’s

Science teacher and the technology commensurate with these developments in order

to make an indelible impact on aspiring scientific students.

We can spark greater interest in Science by not allowing the materials we use

to be outdated by the fast developing fields that the students are being introduced

to. Again, the analogy would serve well if we considered students, eager to learn

about boating, who were introduced to boating through different vehicles. One group

receives an old rowboat, while another group receives the latest inboard motorboat

with depth finders and weather monitors. Both could get to certain destinations, but

surely those who have the advantages of the more sophisticated instruments could

advance further and quicker to the point of interest. Also, since some the menial

navigation duties could be eliminated and the mode of operation power by motor

rather than oars, the students with the updated boat would be able to make greater

observations during the course of their trip.

From the beginning of kindergarten, students come to us with inquisitive minds.

What we do with them makes all the difference in the world. For example, at Russell Elementary School here in Cobb County, elementary students work all year long

with computers to meet their annual NASA simulated launch date in May. Many

hours after school and ongoing assignments are completed so students can track the

path of their space shuttle, choose alternate launch sites if the weather is bad, monitor every aspect of the shuttle’s security and maintenance during the trip, and determine where it lands upon its return. This happens in the 5th grade and there

is a great partnership between the community, school staff, and parents. But if your

child does not attend Russell Elementary or have Mr. Chris Laster as their Science

teacher, he or she may not have that wonderfully, inspiring experience.

As students leave elementary schools and go on to middle schools and high

schools, there should be some comparable programs that allow for exciting experiences that will cause them to want to be involved in more science. Again, depending

on where they are and what they are exposed to, this may or may not happen!

Perhaps we should allow our classrooms to become more inquiry based and less

test oriented so that many our tried and true best practices could take effect and

give us an opportunity to collect some data to really examine our results. No one

minds accountability, but perhaps we have moved so much to testing that we have

left no real time for creating atmospheres that will inspire and generate interest in

science fields.

The challenges of teaching science are complex. First, due to the advances that

are vastly changing the field of science, the curriculum has to more accountable in

that it addresses what we want students to know and eliminates trivial pursuits

posing as standardized tests with little relevance to the emerging high-tech world!

Secondly, students must be given the opportunity to learn without the constant impending threat of evaluation that covers too much and are not markers of accountability but instead simply indicate a lack of continuity between theoretical and practical applications of science education. Also, parents must the mentioned in the

equation for success in creating science and high-tech career candidates for our

economy. Teachers are constantly reminded of all their shortcomings but rarely does

anyone really challenge parents to do their part to help make sure their child is successful in the science world.

As a student of Morehouse College, when I found myself stuck with problems in

my Organic Chemistry classes or Advanced Biochemistry classes, I would call home

23

to my great-grandmother, who raised me, for help, and she was able to give me

what I needed to complete my task. She only had a 7th grade education, yet she

saw to it that my three younger brothers and I not only attended college but graduated with three of the four being in science and technology related fields. Sometimes parents shy away because they may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with technological advances. As a teacher and as living proof, I would like for someone to

really hold parents accountable in a nonvoting type way so they realize the real significance of their presence in their child’s science education. Even if they have to

learn some things with their child, it would be important for them to make that effort over and over again. Perhaps schools will also have to have science classes for

parents to make sure the message gets across. Businesses, the community, and our

government could really help in that regard. Also, if those three groups would make

direct contact with science classrooms so the red tape that sometimes hinders great

ideas could be eliminated, we could make tremendous strides towards progress.

Finally, in closing Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that you remember

every time new ‘‘marching orders’’ are passed down from our leaders, there are some

teachers in science education who enact those orders, even if they are in the second

or third years of previous marching orders. Not unlike the brave men and women

of our country who have sworn to protect our flag and our way of life, there are

those, I believe, who have been ‘‘called’’ to deliver science instruction to the students

of our country. They attempt to complete this task regardless of all the variables

that could affect their ability to complete that task. While we all would agree, and

most work constantly to do just that, we do need for those sending down our new

‘‘marching orders’’ to know that we need to have the broad support of parents, businesses, the many communities, and yes, our government, if we are to continue to

be the world’s envy of technology and its future development.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RANDY O. MCCLURE

Teacher and Science Department Chair at Campbell High School

18-year teacher

1995–1996—Teacher of the Year at Campbell High School

1995–1996—Coach of the Year—Basketball, Marietta Daily Journal

1990—Martin Luther King, Jr. Humanitarian Award recipient

1995–1996–1997—Who’s Who Among American High School Teachers

1996 Olympic Torch Bearer

24

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. McClure.

[Applause.]

Mr. GINGREY. We will now hear from Mr. Martez Hill.

STATEMENT OF J. MARTEZ HILL, POLICY DIRECTOR, GEORGIA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the State Superintendent

of Schools, Kathy Cox, first I want to thank you for the opportunity

to testify to the Committee on Science today. I also want to thank

you and the other members of the Committee for your continued

support for science and math education through the National

Science Foundation. My name is Martez Hill. Currently, I serve as

the Policy Director for the Georgia Department of Education.

Earlier this month, Superintendent Cox joined President Bush

and Secretary Paige in Knoxville, Tennessee to commemorate the

second anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, also

25

known as NCLB. Superintendent Cox was the sole chief state

school officer invited to take part in the landmark event. Superintendent Cox truly believes in the underlying principles of the

NCLB legislation and the goal of ensuring all students are performing at grade level in reading and math by 2013 and 2014.

Even prior to the enactment of No Child Left Behind, Georgia

was a leader in building a foundation of accountability to improve

student achievement. Georgia law required criterion referenced assessments for math, science, reading/language arts and social studies embraced [in grades] three through eight and district report

cards, disaggregation of student data by subgroup, consequences

and rewards and incentives to raise teacher quality through programs like National Board Certification.

Georgia has diligently moved to raise student achievement levels

across the curriculum for several years. In part, the state was

spurred by results from assessments from the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress which showed that our students

were not learning to their full potential in both science and mathematics. Georgia’s economy is inextricably linked to the education of

its citizenry and the quality of its schools, so the continued growth

of Georgia’s high tech job market and its overall economy is linked

to the state’s efforts to lead the Nation in improving student

achievement.

With that in mind, let me briefly highlight three state pre K

through 16 initiatives involving partnerships between the Georgia

Department of Education, the Board of Regents and local school

systems which are designed to increase math and science achievement. I also want to talk about a research study designed to measure No Child Left Behind’s impact on math and science achievement. These partnerships and research study align with Superintendent Cox’s efforts to strengthen Georgia’s performance standards that will drive both instruction and assessment for Georgia’s

teachers and students.

As we work to lead the Nation in improving student achievement, the Georgia Performance Standards will be the foundation

upon which we build. Our teachers have long needed a published

and usable document that establishes high standards, maintains

clear expectations and provides specific guidelines for facilitating

student learning at a deeper level than possible under the old

Quality Core Curriculum. We have drawn on national and international best practices to produce a curriculum that will enable our

schools and students to achieve at levels that will place Georgia not

just at the top of the southeast, but at the top of the Nation and

the world. The number of math and science contents standards has

been trimmed down to give students the opportunity to achieve

mathematical and scientific literacy through deeper study. With

fewer topics, teachers will be able to go deeper into appropriate material and increase the overall rigor and expectation of each grade

level and course. In the past, there has been too much material for

students to have the opportunity to master key concepts.

The Georgia Performance Standards, as well as explanatory videos and presentations describing the major changes in each content

area are available at the Georgia Department of Education’s

website at www.doe.k12.ga.us. I will say that again,

26

www.doe.k12.ga.us. We have asked the public to provide feedback

on the curriculum. We will use the comments as we make final revisions to the curriculum document which will be presented to the

State Board of Education for approval in May and implemented

this fall.

In Georgia the mathematics and science partnership activities

support partnerships between high-need K–12 schools and departments of engineering, mathematics and science in institutions of

higher education and other stakeholders. MSP activities—mathematics and science partnership activities—are aligned with the

State’s performance standards for science and math and are classroom focused in order to produce a measurable improvement in student academic achievement in mathematics and science. One of the

most important indicators of student achievement, of course, is

teacher quality. To lead the Nation again in improving student

achievement, each classroom must have an effective teacher. Toward this end, Georgia’s math and science partnership activities

are focused on recruiting, training and retaining the best and

brightest math and science teachers at the middle school level.

In September 2003, the Georgia Partnership for Reform in Science and Math, also known as PRISM, was awarded a $34.6

million grant from the National Science Foundation. PRISM’s overarching goal is to raise academic achievement and close the performance gaps among Georgia’s students in science and math.

PRISM will directly impact 170,000 students and more than 10,000

teachers in Georgia. In addition, the project will involve over 550

college and university faculty from the University System of Georgia institutions. Similar to the Math and Science Partnership program, PRISM supports professional learning activities for pre K

through 12 and higher education faculty and provides a mechanism

for P–16 collaboration in the revision of Georgia’s performance

standards in math and science.

Georgia has agreed to participate in a four-year study beginning

in this current school year, 2003/2004, by RAND, a not-for-profit

public policy research organization. The RAND study focuses on

the impact of accountability on mathematics and science instruction and student achievement in elementary and middle schools.

This research project is funded by the National Science Foundation

and will include interviews, surveys and case studies from 25 local

school systems across the State. At the end of each year, RAND

will provide a summative report of its findings to the State and

participating local school systems and a final report at the end of

the project. Georgia is one of only three states included in this national research project. We believe the results will be important to

educators in Georgia.

No Child Left Behind, as you all know, requires a minimum 95

percent participation rate on state assessments for all subgroups

enrolled in a school and school system in order for the school and

the system to meet adequate yearly progress. Many of Georgia’s

high schools failed to make AYP, adequate yearly progress, in 2003

because of poor student attendance during the administration of

the state assessments. The Georgia Department of Education has

created a student attendance task force comprised of representatives from local school systems, schools, state and juvenile court

27

systems, local law enforcement, family and children agencies and

other community stakeholders to develop state and local programs

and processes to prevent and stop truancy and student absenteeism.

The convergence of the rewriting of the State’s curriculum, the

Math and Science Partnership, the PRISM grant, the RAND study

of Georgia’s implementation of No Child Left Behind and the work

of the student attendance task force will create substantive improvement in Georgia’s math and science education.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be

more than happy to answer questions.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. MARTEZ HILL

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox, first I

want to thank you for the opportunity to testify to the Committee on Science today.

I also want to thank you and the other Members of the Committee for your continued support for science and math education funding through the National Science

Foundation. My name is Martez Hill. Currently, I serve as the Policy Director for

the Georgia Department of Education.

Earlier this month, Superintendent Cox joined President Bush and Secretary

Paige in Knoxville, Tennessee to commemorate the second anniversary of the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Superintendent Cox was the sole chief state

school officer invited to take part in the landmark event. Superintendent Cox truly

believes in the underlying principles of the legislation and the goal of ensuring all

students are performing at grade level in reading and math by 2013–2014.

Even prior to the enactment of NCLB, Georgia was a leader in building a foundation of accountability to improve student achievement. Georgia law required criterion reference assessments for math, science, reading/language arts, and social

studies in grades 3–8, State and district report cards, the disaggregation of student

data by subgroup, consequences and rewards, and incentives to raise teacher quality

through programs like National Board Certification.

Georgia has diligently moved to raise student achievement levels across the curriculum for several years. In part, the State was spurred by results from assessments like the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) which

showed that our students were not learning to their full potential in both science

and mathematics. Georgia’s economy is inextricably linked to the education of its

citizenry and the quality of its schools, so the continued growth of Georgia’s high

tech job market and its overall economy is linked to the State’s efforts to lead the

Nation in improving student achievement.

Georgia’s P–16 Initiatives

With that in mind, let me briefly highlight three state P–16 initiatives involving

partnerships between the Georgia Department of Education, the Board of Regents,

and local school systems designed to increase math and science achievement and a

research study designed to measure NCLB’s impact on math and science achievement. These partnerships and research study align with and support Superintendent Cox’s efforts to strengthen Georgia Performance Standards that will drive

both instruction and assessment for Georgia’s teachers and students.

World Class Performance Standards

As we work to lead the Nation in improving student achievement, the Georgia

Performance Standards will be the foundation upon which we build. Our teachers

have long needed a published and usable document that establishes high standards,

maintains clear expectations, and provides specific guidelines for facilitating student

learning at a deeper level than possible under the old Quality Core Curriculum. We

have drawn on national and international best practices to produce a curriculum

that will enable our schools and students to achieve at levels that will place Georgia

not just at the top of the southeast, but at the top of the Nation and the world.

The number of math and science content standards have been trimmed down to

give students the opportunity to achieve mathematical and scientific literacy

through deeper study. With fewer topics, teachers will be able to go deeper in appropriate material and increase the overall rigor and expectation of each grade level

28

and course. In the past, there has been too much material for students to have the

opportunity to master key concepts.

The Georgia Performance Standards, as well as explanatory videos and streaming

webcast presentations describing the major changes in each content area, are available at the Georgia Department of Education’s website www.doe.k12.ga.us. We have

asked the public to provide feedback on the curriculum. We will use the comments

as we make final revisions to the document, which will be presented to the State

Board of Education for approval in May and implemented this fall.

Mathematics and Science Partnership Program

In Georgia, the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program (MSP) activities

support partnerships between high-need K–12 schools and departments of engineering, mathematics, and science in institutions of higher education and other stakeholders. MSP activities are aligned with the State’s performance standards for

science and math and are classroom focused, in order to produce a measurable improvement in student academic achievement in mathematics and science. One of the

most important indicators of student achievement is teacher quality. To lead the

Nation in improving student achievement, each classroom must have an effective

teacher. Towards this end, Georgia’s MSP activities focus on recruiting, training,

and retaining the best and brightest math and science teachers at the middle school

level.

Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathematics

In September of 2003, the Georgia Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathe- matics (PRISM) was awarded a $34.6 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF). PRISM’s overarching goal is to raise achievement levels and close the

performance gaps among Georgia’s students in science and mathematics. PRISM

will directly impact 170,000 students and more than 10,000 teachers in Georgia. In

addition, the project will involve over 550 college and university faculty from the

partner University System of Georgia institutions. Similar to the Math and Science

Partnership program, PRISM supports professional learning activities for P–12 and

higher education faculty and provides a mechanism for P–16 collaboration in the revision of Georgia’s Performance Standards in math and science.

RAND Study of Standards-Based Accountability

Georgia has agreed to participate in a four-year study beginning in school year

2003–2004 by RAND, a not-for-profit public policy research organization. The RAND

study focuses on the impact of accountability on mathematics and science instruction and student achievement in elementary and middle schools. This research

project is funded by the National Science Foundation and will include interviews,

surveys, and case studies from 25 local school systems across the State. At the end

of each year, RAND will provide a summative report of its findings to the State and

the participating local school systems, and a final report at the end of the project.

Georgia is one of only three states included in this national research project, and

we believe the results will be important to educators in Georgia.

Reducing Dropouts

NCLB requires a minimum 95 percent participation rate on State assessments for

all subgroups enrolled in a school and school system in order for the school and system to met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Many of Georgia’s high schools failed

to make AYP in 2003 because of poor student attendance during the administration

of the State assessments. The Georgia Department of Education has created a Student Attendance Task Force comprised of representatives from local school systems,

schools, the State juvenile court system, local law enforcement, family and children

agencies, and other community stakeholders to develop State and local programs

and processes to stop and prevent truancy and student absenteeism.

The convergence of the rewriting of the State’s curriculum, the Math and Science

Partnership, the PRISM grant, RAND’s study of Georgia’s implementation of NCLB,

and the work of the Student Attendance task force will create substantive improvement in Georgia’s math and science education.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR J. MARTEZ HILL

J. Martez Hill is a native Georgian and graduated from Emory University in 1993

with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He graduated from Duke University in

1996 with a Master of Public Policy. From 1997 to 2003, he worked as an analyst

in the Georgia Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. In January 2003, Georgia

29

State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox hired Mr. Hill as the Policy Director for

the Georgia Department of Education.

30

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Next we will hear from Dr. Ohme.

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL OHME, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

EDUCATION INTEGRATING SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND

COMPUTING (CEISMC), GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. OHME. Honorable Representatives Gingrey and Davis and

members of the staff and other citizens present, thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you to address how elementary, secondary and post secondary mathematics and science education is

critical to innovative scientific research and to our high tech economy.

It is my premise that the single most important step that the

Federal Government should take to improve K–12 mathematics

and science is to create and support an unequivocal expectation

that all children can and will learn mathematics and science at a

high level. By high level, I mean that the academic program of

study that every high school graduate completes should be one of

opening doors to all possibilities.

How can this high level of access to mathematics and science be

achieved for every student? By providing a highly qualified teacher

in every classroom and not just paper credentials, a content rich,

conceptually based curriculum and learning resources.

In order to have highly qualified teachers, content rich, conceptually sound curriculum and learning resources consistent with the

nature of the disciplines, it is essential that practicing mathematicians, scientists and engineers are involved in the process.

As to the question of how we can grow, educate, attract and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineering students, in

order to have students achieve at proficient and advanced levels,

they must be engaged in learning at proficient and advanced levels.

Today we may be harvesting what we are planting. The following

needs to be relentlessly supported:

1) One, returning teaching to its place as a respected profession. Research reports of the Education Trust and others

show that the single most important factor in student

achievement in mathematics and science is the concept

depth of the teacher. Each individual teacher should be supported in developing a database of professional growth experiences to complement and advance his or her talents. As

research is foundational to science and mathematics, teachers should be afforded the opportunity to participate in scientific and mathematical research that they can then translate into new learning experiences for their students.

2) Providing sufficiency of time for the generation of evidence

of what works or does not, in what context, for whom and

why it works. Involving scientists, mathematicians and engineers in the K–12 continuum is a relatively recent scenario. Therefore, we need the Federal Government to financially support the pilot endeavors at a sufficient level and

for a sufficient amount of time.

31

3) Targeting and sustaining federal dollars. It is critical that

federal dollars, whether transmitted through the National

Science Foundation or the U.S. Department of Education,

are targeted to the school districts involved rather than tangential. Tangential efforts have been shown to have limited,

short-lived impact. Only school districts that have committed to transforming mathematics and science education

and who have defined strategic efforts to engage university

mathematicians, scientists and engineers should be provided the resources to accelerate the implementation of the

already defined plan.

Relative to how K–12 higher-education partnerships can reduce

the need for remediation, promote interest in math and science

education and reduce the number of dropouts, especially for underrepresented populations, we may need a paradigm shift with the

following two items:

1) Assessment, accountability and motivation. We must be

concerned with assessing the results we want, rather than

those that are most easily measured but provide little

meaning. Assessing the memorization of facts in science and

basic computation in mathematics are not sufficient in preparing the scientific, mathematical or teaching workforce of

the future. As the content of mathematics and science is

enormous and ever expanding, we can no longer look to

mere measurements of factoids, rather we must assess the

conceptual understandings which are the underpinnings of

science and mathematics.

2) Acceleration versus remediation. Rather than focusing on

remediation, Georgia Tech has chosen to focus on acceleration. It is trite to say, but success breeds success. By engaging students in successful, yet challenging scientific experiences, learners come to recognize their innate potential.

Ultimately it is vital that all students be supported in access to,

preparation for and participation in courses that will allow them to

make individual decisions as to their post secondary options.

Whether these decisions are made while in high school or a decade

later, students should not be limited in their options for work, military, technical college or university pursuits by the judgment of

others as to what course work they are capable of or may need.

The Nation and Georgia have experienced an increasing reliance

on the scientific and technical skills of those beyond these shores.

We must rededicate ourselves to the support of the human capital

resident in our youth, the leaders of tomorrow and the economic

engine of our future.

Thank you.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ohme follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL OHME

Honorable Representative Gingrey, Members of the Science Committee of the U.S.

House of Representatives and other citizens present, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you to address how elementary, secondary, and post-secondary

mathematics and science education is critical to innovative scientific research and

to our high tech economy.

32

There are four major points that I would like to make and expand upon in my

remarks:

First, the single, most important step that the Federal Government should take

to improve K–12 mathematics and science education is

• To create and support an unequivocal expectation that all children CAN and

WILL learn mathematics and science at a high level.

Second,

• The single most important factor related to student achievement is a highly

qualified, engaging, motivated teacher that is committed to the success of

every student regardless of their background.

Third,

• Institutions of higher education, particularly mathematicians, scientists, and

engineers are a key component in developing a seamless horizontal and

vertical system of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

education leading to a competent technological workforce.

Fourth, and this may be the most harsh to consider

• In order to have students achieve at proficient and advanced levels, they

must be engaged in learning at proficient and advanced levels. Perhaps it

should be considered that the reason, that more than one-third of the students tested on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) perform at the below basic level, is because they are being taught at the below

basic level. Perhaps the diminution of achievement overtime seen on the

TIMSS assessment by students in the United States is because the teaching

and curriculum are redundant rather than taking all students continuously

to the next level. We may be harvesting exactly what we have planted.

Allow me to expand on these points. The mathematics, science and technological

skills of the resident workforce present a quality of life issue for all communities.

The ability to attract and sustain consequential employment opportunities is increasingly reliant on the conceptual understandings, reasoning adeptness, and technical skills found within science, mathematics and technology. In order for communities to thrive, it is imperative that students in these communities are supported

in acquiring the depth of content knowledge and skills of mathematics, science, and

technology sufficient for them to make personal choices and decisions that impact

their communities. This quality of life embraces workforce competency, economic development, informed and engaged citizenry, and stewardship and delight in everyday phenomena encountered in the natural world.

Therefore, it is my premise that the single, most important step that the Federal

Government should take to improve K–12 mathematics and science education is

• To create and support an unequivocal expectation that all children CAN and

WILL learn mathematics and science at a high level.

By a ‘‘high level,’’ I mean that the academic program of study that every high

school graduate completes should be one of opening doors to all possibilities, rather

than limiting the aspirations of any student based on the perceptions of others.

How can this high level of access to mathematics and science be achieved for

every student? By providing:

• A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. That means a teacher

with deep content knowledge, the ability to develop disciplinary understanding within each student, the confidence to assist every student in developing the skills and enthusiasm as a life-long learner, and the commitment

that every child is capable and will learn meaningful mathematics and

science.

• A content rich, conceptually based curriculum that supports every

learner in developing disciplinary conceptual understanding that they can

apply to familiar and unfamiliar, yet to be encountered, situations. This

means that the curriculum is experientially based and allows students to

apply their learning, the true evidence that learning has occurred. Therefore,

the curriculum allows students to make connections to real world applications, including career knowledge in the context of the learning experience.

• Learning resources necessary for exploring the disciplines of mathematics

and science consistent with the nature of these disciplines. This includes access to technologies, laboratory equipment, chemicals, and apparatus sufficient to explore natural phenomena as well as experiment to determine the

33

impact and consequences of changing variables in various situations. Students should be developing skills in developing empirical evidence, analyzing

and synthesizing data, and evaluating the efficacy of the information they are

examining to make informed decisions. These are skills that have life-long implications for success in all fields and for participating as informed citizens

in this democracy and the global world.

Engagement of Mathematicians, Scientists, and Engineers

In order to have highly-qualified teachers, content-rich-conceptually-sound curriculum, and learning resources consistent with the nature of the disciplines, it is

essential that practicing mathematicians, scientists, and engineers are involved in

the process. These disciplinary professionals must be engaged in identifying and

nurturing the future K–12 teachers of mathematics and science who will be the first

teachers of the future scientists and mathematicians. These disciplinary professionals can contribute to ensure accuracy of scientific and mathematical content in

the curriculum as well as fidelity to the nature of these disciplines, including scientific, analytical, thinking. It is critical that we come to consider the mathematics,

science, engineering ‘‘pipeline’’ as including the classroom teachers themselves, as

well as the mathematicians and scientists who teach them, as well as every student

who is a potential scientist, mathematician, or engineer.

More than a mathematics and science pipeline, it is critical that we recognize

mathematics and science education as part of a system, a cycle that must include

attracting outstanding individuals to become teachers of mathematics and science,

so that they can support, motivate, and advance the learning of the K–12 students

they encounter, the future scientists and mathematicians. This means that current

scientists and mathematicians must identify and support potential teachers of

mathematics and science, just as they nurture the future scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. In other words, while we are working to attract the ‘‘best and

the brightest’’ to become full participants in the technological workforce of the future, we must work as diligently to attract the ‘‘best and the brightest’’ to be teachers of mathematics and science. These teachers, disciplinary faculty, and K–12

learners are all part of the equation that has the potential to lead to workforce competency critical to innovative scientific research and to our high tech economy.

As to the question of how we can ‘‘grow, educate, attract and retain the best and

brightest scientists and engineering students?’’ (Based on the involvement you have

had with math and science education programs at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation as well as those in the state of Georgia,

what are the most important and effective components of these programs?)

I reiterate

• In order to have students achieve at proficient and advanced levels, they

must be engaged in learning at proficient and advanced levels.

What are some of the factors that will contribute to every student learning at proficient and advanced levels? Beyond providing a highly qualified teacher, contentrich-conceptually-based curriculum, scientific learning resources, and substantively

involving mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, the following need to be relentlessly supported:

• Returning teaching to its place as a respected profession to be considered by

the best and the brightest as a noble and rewarding career choice.

• Providing sufficiency of time for the generation of evidence of what works (or

doesn’t), in what context, for whom, and why it works.

• Targeting and sustaining federal dollars.

The Professionalization of Teaching

Research reports of the Education Trust and others shows that the single most

important factor in student achievement in mathematics and science is the concept

depth of the teacher. Classroom teachers of science and mathematics must have facility with not only the study of science and mathematics but also the practices of

science and mathematics. Professional growth experiences for teachers cannot be

limited to random workshops and disconnected courses. Rather, teachers should be

supported in an extensive professional growth continuum beyond initial certification. Each individual teacher should be supported in developing a database of professional growth experiences to complement and advance their talents. As research

is foundational to science and mathematics, teachers should be afforded the opportunity to participate in scientific and mathematical research that they can then

translate into new learning experiences for their students. It must be recognized

that it is no more appropriate for every teacher to have the same set of learning

34

experiences, than it is to presume that every high school student needs the same

set of learning experiences. However, there should be agreement on the expectation

of outcomes, knowledge, and skill to be demonstrated by every teacher, just as there

should be a common set of high expectations of demonstrated learning and application for each child.

The challenge of enticing some of the best and brightest into the field of mathematics and science teaching cannot be overlooked as part of solution to problem of

advancing the workforce competency related to innovative scientific research and to

our high tech economy. The disparity in the salary that an engineer with a Bachelor’s degree can command versus a teacher with a Bachelor’s degree has contributed to making teaching a less attractive career. The problem of inviting outstanding individuals into the teaching of mathematics and science is compounded

by the permeation of the societal challenges of poverty and violence into the school

house. Therefore, we must be steadfast in establishing mechanisms to reaffirm

teaching as a noble profession and in supporting teachers in their professional

growth, with appropriate classroom resources and technologies, which promote them

in taking their students to the highest level.

Sufficiency of Time and Evidence

Involving scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in the K–12 continuum is a

relatively recent scenario. Therefore, we need the Federal Government to financially

support the pilot endeavors at a sufficient level and for a sufficient amount of time

to generate evidence of what works, where, and under what circumstances. Sustained federal funding is necessary in order to gain evidence on best practices when

linking active mathematicians, scientists, and engineers to the education of K–12

mathematics and science teachers and their students. The recent support of the

Federal Government for the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Math and Science

Partnership is an exemplar of engaging practitioners, of education and mathematics,

science and engineering, to address the acceleration and advancement of mathematics and science education for all.

Hallmarks of the NSF Math and Science Partnership are partnership, evidence

and shared accountability resulting in institutional change among all core partners.

This is unique among federal support and essential to success. It includes the substantive partnership of university/college mathematicians, scientists, and engineers

with K–12 school districts, focused on generating evidence of effective practices in

advancing the demonstrable achievement of all students in mathematics and

science. Attached below is a copyrighted article taken from the Proceedings of the

2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition

describing some of Georgia Tech’s experiences with university/K–12 partnerships.

The Comprehensive MSP, the Targeted MSP, and the Research, Evaluation, and

Technical Assistance MSP awards have been supported for less than three years.

The new MSP Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century are less than four months

old. These programs are exceptional in that they are defining successful partnerships as being responsive to the distinctive characteristics of the local community,

calling for joint planning among university and K–12 partners, clearly defining the

role of each partner, benchmarking to demonstrate progress, creating mechanisms

for self-correction, and requiring shared responsibility, benefit, and accountability.

It is essential that congress support the continuation of these efforts, in diverse

communities, with different partners, and with varied foci in order to generate a

sufficient evidential research base that can inform full implementation in school districts across the United States. As this evidence is generated in these experimentally NSF supported higher education and K–12 partnerships, the information

can be used to invigorate broader implementation in school districts across the

United States.

Targeting and Sustaining Federal Dollars

It is critical that federal dollars, whether transmitted through the National

Science Foundation or the U.S. Department of Education are targeted to the school

districts involved, rather than tangential. Tangential efforts have been shown to

have limited-short-lived impact. Targeted federal dollars should be consistent with

the local master plan for advancing mathematics and science achievement. Only

school districts that have committed to transforming mathematics and science education and who have defined strategic efforts to engage university mathematicians,

scientists, and engineers should be provided the resources to accelerate the implementation of the already defined plan.

Overtime, students and teachers in classrooms change. Therefore, true educational transformation cannot occur classroom by classroom. Whole mathematics

and science system reform, which is seamless vertically and horizontally, must be

35

implemented. Only school reform in which the university/college community are simultaneously changing to support sustained change over time, including the recruitment, training, and retention of outstanding individuals as teachers of mathematics

and science, as well as the scientists, mathematicians, and engineers of tomorrow,

will result in the quantum leap that is required to advance the technological economy of the U.S. in the 21st century. Only through the sustaining of targeted federal

dollars over a period of five to ten years will we be able to garner the evidence to

demonstrate the efficacy of such accountable-action-oriented partnerships.

Universal Implementation

The U.S. Department of Education is poised to play a pivotal role in supporting

school districts in partnership with higher education in translating the lessons

learned, the evidential-base garnered through MSP research efforts of NSF, into

common practice in all classrooms across the country. While the flow of dollars for

support of the U.S. Department of Education Math and Science Partnership are just

starting to be distributed, it is important that local partnership, involvement of

mathematicians and scientists, and accountability be maintained as individual

States make decisions as to which best practices they will promote.

Related to how K–12-higher education partnerships can reduce the need for remediation, promote interest in mathematics and science education, and reduce the

number of dropouts, especially for under-represented populations, we may need a

paradigm shift within the following:

• Assessment, Accountability, and Motivation

• Acceleration versus Remediation

Assessment, Accountability, and Motivation

As we are concerned with elementary, secondary and post-secondary math and

science education in its criticality to innovative scientific research and to our high

tech economy, we must be concerned with assessing the results we want, rather

than those that are most easily measured, but provide little meaning. Assessing the

memorization of facts in science and basic computation in mathematics are not sufficient to preparing the scientific, mathematical or teaching workforce of the future.

The mathematics and science content knowledge of today is much vaster than when

we were in school and continues to escalate at an incredible rate. If you look at just

a few of the top ten list of scientific discovers in 2002, as reported by Science Magazine, you will discover heretofore unheard of roles for various RNAs, including

micro-RNA-s, elementary-particle physics involving solar neutrinos (a mystery for

the past thirty years), and progress in the field of genome studies that will make

it possible to defeat malaria and hunger. Nanotechnology, chaos theory, and fractals

were unknown just a few decades ago. As the content of mathematics and science

is enormous and ever expanding, we can no longer look to mere measures of

factoids. Rather we must assess the conceptual understandings, which are the

underpinnings of science and mathematics. We must assess the critical ways of

thinking, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating and generating new knowledge that

are the signature of the scientific and mathematical disciplines. We must find ways

of assessing the applications of these concepts in new situations. Only by developing

assessments that allow teachers and professors to determine what students appear

to understand, as well as to diagnose misconceptions so that they can be addressed,

will we successfully develop the next generation of scientific leaders, teachers, and

citizens.

The Federal Government must support the development of appropriate measures

for assessing the advancement of achieve in mathematics and science. In holding

partnerships, schools, communities and universities accountable for improving scientific and mathematical learning, attention must be paid to motivational processes

rather than solely punitive disincentives.

Acceleration versus Remediation

Rather than focusing on remediation, Georgia Tech has chosen to focus on acceleration. That is to say, that the pre-college and college support programs are designed to immerse all involved, whether pre-college students, their teachers, or undergraduate and graduate students in the exciting content that is science, mathematics and engineering. By engaging learners at every level in meaningful content

and continuously successful experiences in learning, we are increasingly attracting

more and more people to the opportunities resident in careers in scientific academia,

industry, and teaching. It is trite to say, but success breeds success. By engaging

students in successful, yet challenging, scientific experiences, learners come to recognize their innate potential.

36

CEISMC Endeavors

Most engineering-scientific Research-1 institutions, particularly those without a

College of Education, focus on generation of new knowledge and the training of the

next generation of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. However, since the

early 1990’s, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) has supported

CEISMC (the Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing) in improving the beginning of the intellectual pipeline, the K–12 students,

in mathematics and science. Through CEISMC, Georgia Tech, links together the intellectual and research expertise of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, their

graduate students, and undergraduates with the K–12 teaching practitioners and

their students. Through CEISMC’s Teaching and Learning Camps, teachers’ scientific and mathematical content and pedagogical skills are advanced with applied

curriculum developed in concert with researchers. Middle grades students participate in these summer camps thus extending their curriculum beyond their regular

school classroom and inspiring them to return to school with renewed enthusiasm

for their ability to learn science and mathematics.

Professional Development

Another professional development opportunity sponsored by CEISMC is the Georgia Industrial Fellowships for Teachers (GIFT) program. This is a partnership with

the scientific, mathematical, and technological corporate sector, university researchers, and schools, which places veteran teachers in scientific and corporate research

experiences for six to eight weeks each summer. Since GIFT’s inception more than

750 placements have been made, with an average of 75 placements each year. These

teachers are supported by mentors to translate their research experiences into classroom learning activities for their students once they return to their classrooms. In

both settings, teachers take ownership of their professional growth and positively

comment on how they have been re-energized in their teaching of mathematics and

science and feel renewed as a professional.

Linking Practitioners and Learners

Georgia Tech’s Student and Teacher Enhancement Partnership (STEP), an NSF

sponsored GK–12 program partners Georgia Tech graduate and undergraduate students with teams of teachers at six majority-minority metro-Atlanta high schools

per year with three primary goals: To use the unique talents and energy of the

Georgia Tech students to help address the pressing needs at the schools; to promote

long-term, mutually beneficial, and multi-faceted partnerships at these school; and

to provide the Georgia Tech students with a teaching internship experience that

would benefit their professional growth and subsequent career, whether in academia, industry, or education. In its third year, fifty-six graduate applicants applied

for thirteen slots, with 54 percent filled by African American students.

Evaluation of this program shows that all participants, teachers, their students,

graduate students and undergraduates (paired with graduate students) have benefited from this program. Among the outcomes for graduate students are academic

content mastery, academic efficiency, professional skills, presentations and publications, interest in teaching and advanced pedagogical skill. Schools benefit from student instruction in cutting-edge science and mathematics, instructional materials

development, student mentoring, access to educational technologies, support for student research, professional development for teachers, and connections to the Georgia

Tech campus. Providing access and linkages to undergraduates, graduates, and faculty researchers gives students, many of whom will be first generation college students an understanding of the power and possibility, which exists within them if

they apply themselves. These students can visualize themselves in these successful

experiences for the first time, because they are given access and support.

In addition, this work is generating a new body of knowledge related to Partnerships which bridge the cultures of K–12 and universities in which scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are substantively engaged. Three stages of partnership encompassing six factors of embeddedness, strategic needs, formation, operation, process outcomes, and performance outcomes are described. (See Partnering Across Cultures: Bridging the Divide between Universities and Minority High Schools, M.

Usselman, D. Llewellyn, D O’Neil, and G. Kingsley).

Pre-college Mentoring

But success can only occur when each student is fully supported with outstanding

teachers, a meaningful conceptually based curriculum, and scientific learning materials, as well as a community of individuals letting each student know they can be

successful. The latter can be accomplished through a number of mentoring approaches. CEISMC partners with corporate mentors, such as BELLSOUTH employVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

ees, in working with teachers and middle grades students early enough in their education to support them in embracing success in science and mathematics. CEISMC’s

Mentoring Program (CMP) links undergraduates as mentors with middle and high

school students.

Pre-College Advanced Curriculum

While providing mentoring experiences for students engaged in Advanced Placement Calculus and Computer Sciences, CEISMC is also partnering with three

metro-Atlanta school districts in the expansion of their advanced learning programs.

While each of the CEISMC collaborative efforts has linked university disciplinary

faculty and loaned CEISMC specialists to the school districts to develop programs

to increase participation and success, particularly among minority students, to honors and advanced coursework, each of these endeavors is unique to the school districts (Cobb, DeKalb, and Atlanta Public Schools), and therefore reinforces a core

premise of all CEISMC’s work, that is it must be responsive to the needs of the

school districts. A cookie-cutter approach does not work, in mentoring, professional

development, or in curricular programs.

Pre-College Technology

In keeping with the notion of acceleration rather than remediation, CEISMC is

developing websites that focus on engaging students and their families in the power,

fascination, and career opportunities resident in science, mathematics, and engineering. CEISMC also develops websites for collaboration among teachers, mentors,

participants, and faculty in order to increase the opportunity for continued interaction and ‘‘just-in-time-learning.’’ The latter refers to when a learner is working

along and encounters something that is particularly challenging, they can share

that challenge and work collaboratively to surmount and own the necessary understanding.

Continuous Support—Once at Georgia Tech

While the primary focus of CEISMC–Georgia Tech’s efforts are at the pre-college

level, while impacting the collegiate level, Georgia Tech has a number of successful

programs which have proven to support accomplishment, particularly among minority students. OMED (Office of Minority Education) serves Georgia Tech under-represented students—African American, Hispanic, and Native American—through a

strategy of academic success and persistence through ‘‘prevention.’’ OMED’s research has found a strong correlation between the minority students first term GPA

and their graduation rate five years later. Consequently, Georgia Tech’s goal is to

work toward a minority graduation rate of 85 percent with a cumulative GPA of 3.0

as the standard for academic performance. OMED fosters this through its ‘‘academic

pre-season’’ embodied in programmatic pieces for entering students. Georgia Tech

supports students in academic transition programs that provide continuous analysis

and assessment with real-time feedback as students are supported in their academic

immersion experiences. OMED’s activities have shown an increased closing of the

gap among Black students retention benchmarked against the total Georgia Tech

population, and shows that Hispanics are retained at a higher rate than either

Blacks or the Georgia Tech population. More detailed information relating to OMED

is attached.

FOCUS

Georgia Tech is also focused on the success of under-represented populations at

the graduate level. FOCUS is a graduate student recruitment program rooted in

marketing: marketing Tech, marketing Atlanta, and marketing graduate school. The

experience opens these students, many of whom are first-generation college graduates, of the potential research and educational opportunities waiting for them.

Many under-represented college graduates are focused first on entering the world

of employment, without having the opportunity to consider the benefits of graduate

study. FOCUS is a collaboration of Georgia Tech and the King Center. It invites

minority graduates to a four day experience in Atlanta. It not only exposes students

to the faculty and facilities of this Research-1 Institute, but also to the history of

the city as the seat of the civil rights movement. It is no small wonder that FOCUS

is timed to coincide with the city’s celebration honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.

These efforts are demonstrating success. Tech currently holds the distinction of

being first in the number of Master’s degrees and doctoral degrees conferred upon

African-Americans. It is notable that one-third of the graduate-level students enrolled at Georgia Tech participate in FOCUS.

38

Summation

Ultimately, it is vital that all students be supported in access to, preparation for,

and participation in courses that will allow them to make individual decisions as

to their post-secondary pursuits. Whether those decisions are made while in high

school, or a decade later, students should not be limited in their options for work,

military, technical college, or university pursuits by the judgment of others as to

what course work they are capable of, or may need. The single most important factor related to student achievement is a highly qualified, engaging, motivated teacher

that is committed to the success of every student regardless of their background.

But additional supports, through meaningful curriculum, learning resources, mentoring, and bridging/transitioning support programs have demonstrable impacts on

student success. This is true for students under-represented in the fields of mathematics, science and engineering as well as those well represented. Finally, the nature of partnership among universities and K–12 schools is critical and must embrace mutual respect, shared benefits, and responsiveness to the needs of all involved.

The Nation and Georgia have experienced an increasing reliance on the scientific

and technical skills of those beyond these shores. We must rededicate ourselves to

the support of the human capital resident in our youth, the leaders of tomorrow,

the economic engine of our future.

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

1 NSF Award Number 0086420.

2 NSF Award Number 0231904. We are in our second year of this three-year project. For more

details on this research, ‘‘Alternative Approaches to Evaluating STEM Education Partnerships:

A Review of Evaluation Methods and Application of an Inter-organizational Model,’’ please visit

the project website at http://www.prism.gatech.edu/∼gk18/STEM 3This definition draws from Gulati and Gargiulo’s (1999) definition of alliances among firms.

Their work provides a general summary of how alliances emerge and develop products, technologies and services.

Attachment

Partnering Across Cultures: Bridging the Divide between

Universities and Minority High Schools

MARION USSELMAN, CENTER FOR EDUCATION INTEGRATING SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND COMPUTING

(CEISMC)

DONNA LLEWELLYN, CENTER FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (CETL)

DARA O’NEIL, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

AND GORDON KINGSLEY, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Abstract

The historical mission of most engineering-dominated Research-1 universities is

to create new knowledge and to train students in technological fields. In the absence

of a College of Education, and given an institutional culture prioritizing scholarly

research, institutions such as Georgia Tech often do not have a long history of systemic faculty involvement in the K–12 educational community. However the current

national focus, initiated by public funding agencies such as the National Science

Foundation, encourages academic scientists and engineers to shoulder some of the

responsibilities for the quality of science, technology, engineering and mathematics

(STEM) education at the K–12 level, and to do this by developing university-K–12

‘‘partnerships.’’ Unfortunately, given the vast cultural differences that exist between

universities and K–12 schools, these partnerships too often flounder, never managing to bridge the divide to the point of mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual

benefit.

We are currently in the third year of an NSF-funded GK–12 project, the Student

and Teacher Enhancement Partnership (STEP)1, and are preparing to embark on

a five-year extension. A major part of this project has been the building, nurturing,

and grooming of partnerships between Georgia Tech and local minority high schools.

As part of this project we have developed a model of partnerships that is grounded

in the public policy literature and that describes the evolution of the partnerships

created between Georgia Tech and four minority-dominated high schools as part of

STEP. In this paper we will describe the theoretical framework of the partnership

model, outline ways to assess partnership outcomes, and apply this model to the

STEP program case study.

Theoretical Framework of a Partnership Model

As part of a separate NSF-sponsored research project, we are examining how

partnerships influence STEM educational outcomes in NSF’s Systemic Initiatives

Program and Math and Science Partnerships Program.2 We do so by exploring how

the emergence, operation, and in some cases, dissolution of partnerships influence

the process by which STEM educational outcomes are pursued and achieved. For

the purposes of this research, we define partnerships as voluntary arrangements between organizations, anchored by agreements, to promote the exchange, sharing, or

co-development of products or programs designed to stimulate STEM education.3

Partnerships are a particular form of inter-organizational collaboration. However,

they are distinctive in that participants are not merely bound by mutual interests.

They have also developed agreed goals and responsibilities for achieving these

55

4 Boyers, E.L. (1981). ‘‘School/college partnerships that work,’’ Current Issues in Higher Education, Vol. 1, p. 4–10. 5Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). ‘‘Inter-organizational relations,’’ American Review of Sociology, Vol.

11, pp. 281–304. 6Gulati, R. and M. Gargiulo (1999). ‘‘Where do inter-organizational networks come from?,’’

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, no. 5, p. 1439–1493. 7Kingsley, G. and J. Melkers (2000). The Art of Partnering across Sectors: The Importance

of Set Formation to Network Impacts in State R&D Projects. In L. O’Toole, Hal Rainey, and

Jeffrey Brudney (Eds.), Advancing Public Management: New Developments in Theory, Methods,

and Practice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 8Provan, K.G. and H.B. Milward (2001). ‘‘Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks,’’ Public Administration Review, Vol. 61, no. 4, pp.

414–423. 9Oliver, C. (1990). ‘‘Determinants of inter-organizational relationships: Integration and future

directions,’’ Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 241–265. 10 Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. 11Gulati, R. (1998). ‘‘Alliances and networks,’’ Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp.

293–317. 12Kanter, R.M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance, New York: Touchstone, Simon, and

Schuster.

goals.4 Such agreements are usually articulated in formal contracts, memoranda of

understanding, or statements of work. However, we do not exclude the informal

‘‘hand-shake’’ variety of agreement in our definition. We also note that the term or- ganization is applied loosely to include the organized interests of parents and other

interest groups.

In the multidisciplinary field of public policy research, partnerships have been

studied from multiple perspectives including organizational theory and inter-organizational relations. Inter-organizational studies are the umbrella from which studies

of organizational networks, partnerships and alliances have emerged.5 In other policy contexts inter-organizational conceptual foundations have been used to study the

relationships among firms, not-for-profits, public agencies, and in public-private

partnerships. Researchers from myriad disciplines have contributed to the conceptual foundations of inter-organizational studies including scholars from business, sociology, economics, public administration, and anthropology. These studies have

been pursued using a wide-variety of research methods including cluster analysis,

graph and network analysis, qualitative case studies and social mapping techniques,

and various statistical regression techniques. Consequently, inter-organizational

concepts cover a wide range of partnering behavior and provide an analytic language that is sufficiently developed and useful to span the multidisciplinary world

of STEM education.

While many STEM education programs may seek to link partnership efforts to

positive outcome variables such as increased student achievement, researchers and

evaluators from several fields have noted that studies of interoganizational relations

(such as partnerships) rarely address outcomes.6 , 7 , 8 It is far more common for

partnership studies to try and explain the reasons for the formation and structure

of relationship rather than subsequent actions and value-added to the individual

partners.9 Alternatively, studies will posit that partnership is a positive factor and

then provide evidence to support the premise.

Another issue is that partnerships are often treated as rational, strategic acts

which organizations form to control or influence their working environment. From

this perspective organizations enter into the partnership as a means of gaining information, control over their strategic environment, or to secure vital resource

flows.10 However, this is an under-socialized, overly rational point of view that does

not account for existing relationships in which an organization is embedded.11 Partnerships also emerge because organizations have a long-standing working relationship and one is persuaded by another to participate. Organizational institutionalists

argue that rationales for participation in a partnership may be strategic, but they

may also be coercive, mimetic, or persuasive as well.

There is also a difficulty in inter-organizational studies in articulating when a

failure has occurred. Studies have found a high incidence of failure amongst partnerships and joint ventures.12 However, there has been a good deal of uncertainty

regarding when a partnership has failed. For example, studies have concluded that

failure is represented by the end of the partnership. If the individual parties to the

partnership have achieved their goals and agreed to dissolution then it does not

seem appropriate to label such an experience a failure. Even if only a few of the

participants to a partnership benefit while others do not, then the result can be ambiguous. In the case of STEM educational outcomes the ultimate determination of

success for many political and educational leaders is improvement in the performVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

13 Essex, N.L. (2001). ‘‘Effective school-college partnerships: A key to educational renewal and

instructional improvement,’’ Education, Vol. 121, no. 4, p. 732–737. 14Sirotnik, K. and J. Goodlad (1988). School University Partnerships in Action, New York:

Teachers College Press.

ance of students in their abilities and on test scores. Even partnerships that have

dissolved may have served their purpose in creating a climate to engender and sustain these improvements.

A final issue in evaluating partnerships is the transportability of successful partnerships from one setting to another. A form of partnership that is found to be effective in a rural setting may not apply well in an urban area. Affluence, community

culture, or ethnic diversity may act as additional contingencies affecting the link between partnership and educational outcomes. Essex (2001) offers seven characteristics of effective partnerships between a K–12 school and a university but cautions

against of one-size-fits-all application.13 Sirotnik and Goodlad (1988) also warn

against becoming too focused on a single model of effective collaboration.14

To develop a useful tool for evaluating STEM partnerships, models must be robust

enough to address these challenges. This means that the model should attempt to

establish clear relationships between the partnership and the desired outcomes.

There must also be a clear focal relationship (e.g., a particular dyadic partnership,

or a network of organizations, or an individual organization). Success and failure

need to be judged in terms of the overall objectives of partnership rather than measuring failure through the participation of individual members. And studies must

build towards robustness by being comparative not only between highly embedded

and non-embedded organizations, but also among partnerships in different types of

communities (e.g., advantaged vs. disadvantaged; homogenous vs. heterogeneous;

large vs. small school system; or rural vs. urban geographic location).

Partnership Conceptual Model

Through this research, we are developing a conceptual model for linking partnerships and outcomes. Six concepts are drawn from organizational and inter-organizational relations studies into a conceptual model that links the pre-conditions for

partnership, with partnering activities, and finally partnership outcomes.

Stage One

This model captures the pre-existing conditions in terms of strategic needs and

the embeddedness in relations among organizations prior to the partnership.

• Embeddedness describes the number and types of relationships that organizations have with one another prior to the development of a partnership.

• Strategic needs describes the types of resource and legitimacy needs confronting individual organizations prior to a partnership and whether there is

a congruence or complimentarity in these needs.

The concepts of embeddedness and strategic needs are not mutually exclusive and

are likely to work in concert. In Table 1, we offer a two by two matrix describing

some of the possible combinations. Each partnership or set of partnerships within

a STEM project can be classified according to this chart.

57

Embeddedness may occur in either a positive or negative form. Two organizations

may know each other well, have lots of experience working together, yet really dislike and distrust the other. Thus, each partnership will have to be classified as high

(negative) or high (positive) in terms of embeddedness. In Table 1, low levels of

embeddedness may signify that the two organizations have little history of working

together. Similarly, all organizations have strategic needs. The issue in this model

is whether those needs are 1) strategically related to the objectives of the partnership, and 2) congruent or complementary.

Just because partnerships fall outside of quadrant IV does not predict that they

will be a failure in terms of process and performance outcomes. But it does indicate

that the nature of partnership needs to be adapted to reflect these conditions. For

example, partnerships in quadrant II exhibit high levels of congruence among partners in their ability to satisfy strategic needs through the project. But these organizations are low on embedding meaning that they do not have a history of working

together. We would anticipate that the partnership process variables of stage two

will exhibit higher transaction costs and formalization of agreements if this partnership is to be successful. Similarly, partnerships in quadrant III have high levels of

embeddedness but low congruence of strategic interests. In order to achieve successful outcomes the partnership must devise ways of building on the pre-existing trust

among organizations with incentives that motivate the partners to fulfill their duties to the partnership. Finally in quadrant I partners do not have embedded relationships nor is there much in the way of congruent interests. Such partnerships

are likely to be marriages of convenience bound by the desire to secure grant monies

or other resources.

Stage Two

The third and fourth concepts describe the types of partnering activities that develop. These concepts are designed to describe the process of partnering and include

the following:

• Partnership formation describes the types of agreements regarding the goals,

resource allocations, and responsibilities of each party to the partnership.

This concept captures the collective intent of the partnership and includes the

following ideas:

Æ Partnership Goal—Partnerships take aim by setting objectives that engage the full complexity of the problem or may focus on a narrower slice

of the issue. The wider the focus the more likely the partnership is to

require the intervention, reinforcement, and support of resources outside

the school system. For example, it is not uncommon in math-science education (or in other subjects as well) for students to have a view of their

life and development that does not include the application of these basic

educational tools. Challenging this perception requires not only the personal interventions of the schools but also may require challenging a

community culture that lacks of vision of the possibilities associated with

these tools. Effectively addressing a student’s need for math-science eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
58

15Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). ‘‘Inter-organizational relations,’’ American Review of Sociology, Vol.

11, pp. 281–304.

cation may require enlisting role models and resources beyond those the

school can provide.

Æ Partnership Agreement—Refers to the number and types of formal agreements that are entered into among the partners as a means of achieving

process and performance outcomes. In general, researchers have found

that embedded relationships require less formalization over time.15 Thus,

we might predict that partnerships with positive patterns of

embeddedness would require fewer agreements in order to reach positive

outcomes. Attempts to formalize such arrangements may actually work

to hinder such good results.

Æ Partnership Focus—Organizations are not monoliths. Instead they are

comprised of groups of professions, coalitions, and operating divisions.

Partnerships vary in terms of the types of different groups that have

some form of interaction with one another. For example, organizations

may be highly embedded but not in the relationships that are critical for

the objectives of the project. For example, school system administrators

may have excellent working relationships with universities. But their

teachers may have no experience in interacting with university representatives. This means that for the purposes of improving teacher performance the high levels of pre-existing embedding may not produce the

normal types of benefits associated with these relationships. One way of

capturing this is to identify the number and types of different groups engaged in each partnership.

Æ Partnership Complexity—Refers to the number of different organizations

and activities within the partnership. Complexity has been posited to

have four dimensions: vertical, horizontal, sectoral and spatial. Vertical

refers to whether the partnership is organized into a hierarchy with clear

lead organizations and clear followers. Horizontal complexity refers to the

number of peer organizations operating at the same level and on similar

tasks. Sector-based complexity refers to the number of organizations

drawn from the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors participating in

the partnership. Spatial complexity is the number of different geographic

locations involved in the partnership. Highly complex partnerships are

more difficult to operate and keep focused on partnership objectives, but

there are also more opportunities for spillover benefits due to additional

extra-partnership collaboration.

• Partnership operations describe the actual behaviors in which the partners

engaged as they pursue the goals and duties of the partnership. This concept

includes the following:

Æ Partnership Interdependence—Refers to the extent that partners depend

upon each other for resources or materials to accomplish the partnership

objectives. Three types of interdependence have been identified: pooled,

sequential and reciprocal. Pooled refers to relationships that are not

highly interdependent where each partner works fairly independently.

Sequential refers to relationships where the work of one partner feeds

into the work of another partner and this second partner is not able to

proceed until the work of the first partner is accomplished. Under reciprocal interdependence each partner must share work back and forth until

it is completed. Reciprocal relationships are the most interdependent

form of partnership.

Æ Transaction Costs—These are the costs that organizations absorb in the

implementation of a task. In partnerships transaction costs are almost always high because the participating organizations have to adapt to each

other’s method of doing business. Transaction costs can be higher if individuals from different professions are interacting (usually requiring that

each learn a bit of each other’s language) or if different sectors are involved (as individuals from the private and public sectors adapt to the

particular rules that govern their home organizations).

Æ Partnership Communication—This refers to the frequency with which

partners interact and the direction of these interactions. One of the more

common complaints in university-school partnerships is that the communication flows are largely one-way with universities providing informaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
59

16 NSF Award Number 0338261.

tion and resources to schools. These patterns may be highly embedded

and even be high in congruent interests if they contribute to the professional development of school systems and/or teachers. However, when

confronted with a challenge as difficult as reforming STEM education

outcomes, greater dialogue may be required in order to achieve positive

outcomes.

Stage Three

The final two concepts describe the types of outcomes that develop from the partnership. These concepts are designed to capture the results of the partnership.

• Process outcomes describe the qualitative and quantitative assessments that

measure whether the partnership actually achieved the goals and duties of

operation. For example, under process outcomes we may observe whether

partners were able to implement a common curriculum across schools, marshal resources among partners, bring together the support and talents of universities, parents, businesses and not-for-profits, or achieve congruence

among policies.

• Performance outcomes assess such improvements as in the working environments of teachers, enhancements in their ability to engage in STEM education, and assessments of the performance of students on STEM topics.

Stage One and Two variables in the partnership model describe how pre-existing

conditions and strategies of partnering need to be matched in order to produce positive outcomes. This is particularly true with process outcomes. Under Stage Two

partnership variables we observe the types of interactions, agreements, resources,

foci, transaction costs, etc. that are associated with a project. Stage Three outcome

variables capture the degree to which these efforts are translated into conditions for

successful STEM partnerships.

The Student and Teacher Enhancement Partnership (STEP) Program—

Case Study

The Student and Teacher Enhancement Partnership (STEP) program, funded for

three years by the National Science Foundation as part of the GK–12 program, with

a continuation for another five years (as STEP Up!16 ), partners Georgia Tech graduate and undergraduate students with teams of teachers at six metro-Atlanta high

schools per year. The discussion that follows applies the conceptual model of partnerships to the STEP program, analyzing the program based on the theoretical concepts described. A total of ten high schools, widely distributed geographically

throughout the Atlanta metropolitan area and in terms of socio-economic status,

have participated in the STEP program over the past two and one-half years. We

will limit the current discussion to the partnership with four primarily African

American schools in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.

In this report we examine the body of data collected during the STEP evaluations

and organize this information using our partnership model. In doing so, we attempt

to observe both the variance in partnering-related activities and the evolution of the

partnership over time.

Partnership Assessment Strategy for STEP

The findings for this study are drawn from the on-going evaluation of the STEP

program. Because the STEP program is in the early stages of development the assessment strategy is currently formative in nature, emphasizing qualitative data

collection methods and descriptive analysis of the partnerships. The key evaluation

issue is whether the STEP program enhances math and science partnerships (in

this case between Georgia Tech, the school districts and the high schools) by introducing Fellows as a resource for teachers. Thus, in addition to the variables described above, several key relationships served as the focus for the larger evaluation:

1) Evidence of enhanced math and science partnerships between Georgia Tech,

the school districts, and the high schools.

2) Evidence of effective working relationships between high school teachers and

the STEP Fellows.

3) Evidence of benefits to teachers, Fellows, and high school students from participating in the STEP program.

4) Identification of factors that facilitate or hinder the achievement of the impacts identified in previous three points.

60

The principle evaluation method employed during the first few years is to develop

case studies of each of the high schools participating in the STEP program. The narrative in each case describes the implementation of STEP from the perspective of

each of the partners. In addition to the case studies, the data is examined according

to the roles that individuals play within STEP. Thus, aggregate narratives are developed for Fellows, Teachers, Coordinators, and Advisers. A variety of data sources

are used in this study including:

• Semi-structured interviews with Fellows, teachers, advisers, coordinators, and

STEP administrators.

• Surveys of Fellows following the summer training programs for STEP.

• Document reviews of the action plans for each high school.

• Document reviews of lesson plans and assessment tools developed by the

STEP Fellows.

• In-class observations of the STEP Fellows.

• Review of journals maintained by the STEP Fellows of their experiences within the high schools.

Input from high school students was also compiled through presentations and information from the STEP Fellows, such as videotapes and student evaluations conducted by individual teachers or STEP Fellows.

Stage One: Embeddedness

The STEP program has provided a way to partner Georgia Tech with four primarily African American high schools in which it historically has had few ties. It

is worth mentioning that many of the local African American-majority schools view

the local majority-white universities with a large amount of distrust, a point of view

rooted in segregation and in the fact that minority schools in the southern United

States have traditionally been forced to operate with far fewer resources than their

white counterparts. In addition, universities often initiate ‘‘reforms’’ in local schools

that are short-lived, leading to a healthy skepticism by veteran teachers about the

university’s long-term commitment. University academic faculty often approach

projects presuming that they know better than the school personnel how to solve

the problems of K–12 education, causing teachers to be suspicious that university

involvement will just create additional work for them. The distrust is also fueled

by the legacy of segregated southern universities (including Georgia Tech), by the

current debate about affirmative action and the fairness of standardized exams such

as the SAT, and by the lack of cross-cultural dialog between African American and

Caucasian students who have never sat next to, nor competed academically with,

students from the other race. So in many ways, the pre-existing relationships between the individual majority-black schools and the majority white universities are

fraught with historical baggage, are examples of communities with vastly differing

cultures and expectations, and therefore exhibit very low levels of embeddedness.

However the central administration of these large, urban, school systems are often

experienced at partnering with local universities, which provides an effective initial

point of entry.

Stage One: Strategic Needs

For the High Schools

The four schools participating in this partnership all post low standardized test

scores, and on most measures of academic achievement (including the percent of

students requiring academic remediation in college) they perform well below their

majority-white suburban peer schools. The demographics and 2001–2002 academic

performances of the partner schools are listed in the table below.

61

The need for increased academic achievement is therefore easily demonstrable.

However precisely which strategic needs are addressed by the STEP partnership?

They are the needs endemic in low performing schools where the teachers are under

great stress to improve academic performance at the same time as they are coping

with student disengagement, transient student populations, and lack of parent involvement or support. In other words, they are:

• The need for extra adults to assist with developing and implementing laboratory exercises.

• The need for assistance with locating and coordinating educational excursions, and for planning after school clubs and organizations.

• The need for assistance in taking advantage of educational and funding opportunities.

• The need for role models and mentors for students.

• The need for expert content resource people to aid both teachers and students.

• The need for support for the use of educational technology.

On the other side, what are the strategic needs of Georgia Tech that are satisfied

by STEP, and are these needs congruent and/or complementary to the needs of the

schools system? Georgia Tech’s needs are:

• The need for opportunities for graduate students to gain leadership, communication, and teaching skills.

• The need for graduate students and faculty members to have approved avenues for engaging with and giving back to the community. This is particularly

true for our African American graduate students.

• The need for faculty to engage in educational outreach and workforce development activities to help them attract external research grants.

The needs of the two partners are therefore largely congruent since the university

partners satisfy their needs through interacting with the school system partners.

Stage Two: Partnership Formation

Partnership Goals

• To use the unique talents and energy of the Georgia Tech students to help

address the pressing needs at the schools;

• To promote long-term, mutually beneficial, and multi-faceted partnerships at

these schools; and

• To provide the Georgia Tech students with a teaching internship experience

that will benefit their professional growth and subsequent career, whether in

academia, industry, or education.

Partnership Agreements

The Science Coordinator or Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum from each participating school system selected schools to participate in the STEP Program. The

schools selected were ones that had demonstrated need, but that also had well-functioning leadership and the capacity to partner. Because of the disproportionately

high participation rate by Georgia Tech African American graduate students and

the high level of need in the predominantly black Atlanta-area schools, we decided

after Year 2 to concentrate most of our efforts on the issues of the primarily black

schools.

62

Partnership Focus

Two Graduate Fellows and a teacher coordinator form the initial central core of

the STEP team at each school. As the partnership progresses at a school and the

capacity of the school to effectively expand the partnership increases, undergraduate

students are added to the mix, or new ventures, such as a pilot using a social

science graduate student, are added. This increased school capacity usually takes

the form of an increase in the number of teachers who claim ownership of the

school-Georgia Tech partnership and who understand the value of, and the optimal

ways of interacting with, the graduate Fellows. In each school the partnership has

evolved differently. The STEP staff provides guidance and consultation, but the central philosophy of STEP is that the nature of the partnership is defined by the people directly involved. The STEP co-PIs choose the graduate Fellows, give them training, and put them into the field to work in ways that best fit their talents and inclinations and that most effectively address school needs.

Partnership Complexity

Vertical Complexity—Georgia Tech is the lead STEP organization, maintaining

partnerships with multiple high schools. However substantial effort has been invested in moving the relationship away from a leader and follower status, and encouraging the high schools and teachers to take the lead on initiating projects. However the central STEP administration effectively holds the project together.

Horizontal Complexity—STEP involves multiple high schools, and multiple Georgia Tech academic units, centers, and laboratories. In this regard, the project is

highly complex, and relies on creating multiple horizontal connections between independent entities. However since only one university is involved, this decreases the

problems of multiple collaborations between peer institutions.

Sectoral Complexity—STEP is primarily a partnership between the university and

the schools. However long-term sustainability probably requires that additional

partners be added from the private sector. STEP has initiated a campaign to attract

private sponsors, which will undoubtedly add to the complexity of the general partnership.

Geographic Complexity—STEP operates only in metro-Atlanta, within commuting

distance for the graduate Fellows. This simplifies many aspects of the partnership.

Stage Two: Partnership Operation

Partnership Interdependence

The STEP PI and co-PI do not dictate what the team is to do, but instead serve

to ‘‘run interference’’ and ensure that the program runs smoothly, that the activities

are consistent with the goals of the program, and that all of the team members are

communicating effectively. The partnerships with each school are reciprocal, requiring that each side initiate actions, and follow through with support for the other

side.

Transaction Costs

The most substantial cost of STEP is in the graduate Fellow stipends, tuition, and

other associated cost-of-education expenses. Money is also invested in the form of

staff salaries. Therefore in this partnership, components with ‘‘high transaction

costs’’ are usually defined as those that take lots of time and energy from the STEP

staff and from the graduate Fellows.

At the school level, each STEP team is led by a Teacher Coordinator who is paid

a $2,500 stipend. That teacher is responsible for recruiting colleagues into the program, and for overseeing the placement and activities of the STEP Fellows. Each

Teacher Coordinator is provided with $2,000 for materials and supplies, and $1,000

to support teacher professional development activities. Additional teachers who become involved with the program are provided with financial compensation, up to a

total of $2,000 per school. In addition, each STEP Fellow is provided with money

for supplies—$500 per graduate student, and $250 per undergraduate student.

Partnership Communication

Many of the most serious problems that have arisen during STEP can be traced

to a breakdown in communication that leads to different expectations between participants, such as between a Fellow and a teacher. We have learned that prompt

and regular communication, regular monitoring of graduate Fellow activities, and

a willingness to quickly change course when people are dissatisfied serves to minimize the problems that stem from poor communication. One problem of partnering

with minority schools is that the school personnel often are not comfortable using

e-mail, which is the primary mode of communication at the university. This state

appears to be changing, however, making the communication routes much easier.

63

Stage Three: Process Outcomes

As indicated in the Partnership Assessment Strategy section above, STEP outcomes at this stage are primarily: 1) evidence of enhanced partnerships, 2) evidence

of effective working relationships, and 3) evidence of benefits to teachers, Fellows,

and high school students. These outcomes are described under Performance Outcomes. Process Outcomes include the actual operation of the partnership, and the

infrastructure developed to support the program. These are detailed below.

STEP Summer Training Course

Before they are placed in the classroom, STEP Fellows receive ten weeks of training during the summer at the start of their fellowship period. The goals of this

training are three-fold: to start the work of building partnership teams and planning for the academic year; to give the Fellows a ‘‘toolbox’’ of knowledge and resources to use once they arrived at the high schools; and to provide ample opportunity to explore relevant topics in education and to practice using the tools that

they are learning. The expectation is that at the end of the ten weeks the Fellows

will be ready to be fully participating members of the teams at the schools, ready

to act as content expert resources and to engage with the teachers as partners in

the educational mission of the high school classroom.

School-Based Partnering Activities

The action plan, developed by each school team, details the types of activities that

best fit the needs of the school and the talents and professional and personal desires

of the Fellows. Examples of the activities include:

• Student Instruction—Fellows can assist partner teachers with instruction in

the classroom in the form of hands-on laboratory experiments, group research

projects, active group discussions of science topics, and/or short lectures on

content.

• Instructional Materials Development—Fellows can develop instructional materials, or adapt existing materials to reflect more inquiry learning. The learning objectives covered depend completely upon the needs of the specific classroom.

• Student Enrichment and Mentoring—Fellows are often involved in direct tutoring and mentoring of students, and in coordinating activities such as high

school chapters of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE Jr.) and

Science Olympiad.

• Educational Technologies—Fellows can provide teachers and students with

assistance in implementing educational technologies in classroom projects and

curricula, including initiating web-based classroom resource and discussion

pages.

• Student Research and Science Fair Projects—Fellows provide invaluable assistance to students in conceptualizing a viable science experiment, providing

feedback on the appropriate uses of the scientific method, assisting with locating appropriate research equipment and supplies, reviewing experimental

progress and data, and advising on presentation of results.

• Teacher Professional Development—Fellows have designed and implemented

staff development activities for teachers, often focusing on the use of educational technology.

• Georgia Tech Connections—Fellows are very effective at increasing the linkages between Georgia Tech and the partner schools. Graduate students are

plugged into the events in their departments and in the broader university

community, and are constantly reviewing these connections with an eye towards applicability to the high school community.

Graduate Fellow Participation

Recruitment: Despite initial skepticism by Georgia Tech faculty and administrators, the STEP program has become increasingly and highly popular among graduate students, particularly among the African American graduate students (see

chart below). We attribute this to the strong involvement by black graduate students in community involvement and civic leadership activities, and to a powerful

‘‘word of mouth’’ promotion of the program within the minority community at the

institute. The table below shows the ethnic and gender breakdown of the applicants

and participants in the program for the first three years. Note the progressive increase in application number. (B=black, W=white, O=other, M=male, F=female.)

64

Between years one and three, the number of academic units represented by those

applicants grew from five departments in two colleges to eleven departments in four

colleges.

Stage Three: Performance Outcomes

STEP is, in essence, a grand experiment in partnership building. Can a highly

technical, majority white, university, over an eight-year period, build meaningful

partnerships with low-income and predominantly minority schools that will outlast

the individual people and the external support, and that will yield quantifiable benefits to both sides?

Indications of Partnership Building

Sustainable partnerships must be built upon the efforts, concerns, and agendas

of many people if they are to survive the departure of the original players. Bearing

this in mind, our philosophy has been to encourage all STEP participants to expand

the partnership network whenever possible, and to include academic departments,

individual laboratories, campus offices, student organizations, business and industry

partners, and professional societies on the university end, and as many teachers,

school clubs, administrators, and students as possible on the K–12 end. Thus far,

the most noteworthy aspects of this partnership infrastructure include:

• Involvement by Large Numbers of Academic Units at Georgia Tech, including:

Æ 9 academic units in the College of Engineering

Æ 4 academic units in the College of Sciences

Æ The College of Computing

Æ 2 academic units in the Ivan Allen College (for Liberal Arts and Social

Science).

• Active Participation by Minority Organizations. Georgia Tech graduates more

black engineers than any other institution in the country, and the Georgia

Tech Black Graduate Student Association, and the National Society of Black

Engineers (NSBE) have been two of our strongest partners. The black graduate students have also involved the FOCUS program (which encourages minority participation in graduate school), the FACES program (Facilitating

Academic Careers in Engineering and Science), EMERGE (Empowering Minority Engineers to Reach for Graduate Education), as well as 100 Black Men

of Atlanta.

• Involvement by NSF-funded Engineering and Science Research Centers.

• Direct School-University Lab Partnerships to foster research opportunities for

teachers and high school students.

• Involvement by Georgia Tech Offices and Organizations, notably the Office of

Undergraduate Admissions, the Women’s Resource Center, and the Division

of Professional Practice.

• Involvement by Increasing Numbers of Teachers at Partner Schools.

• Involvement by High School Students in Georgia Tech-Sponsored Enrichment

Activities.

Graduate Student Outcomes

All Fellows, at the end of their tenure, answer the journal question ‘‘What did you

gain from being a STEP Fellow?’’ In answer, the graduate students wrote:

‘‘An extreme sense of satisfaction at the contribution I made to my students’

lives—no matter how small it was. It was also the first experience I’ve had that

65

has made me seriously consider teaching as a career. I’ve even recommended it

to several people.’’ Black female, 4th year chemistry Ph.D. student

‘‘The biggest thing that I gained was confidence. I have no problem standing in

front of a class and lecturing.’’ White female, 2nd year mechanical engineering

Master’s student

‘‘The STEP program has changed my career objectives. I now want to, ultimately, use my Ph.D. to develop educational programs for high schools. I want

to create partnerships between industry and high schools. Don’t ask me how just

yet; my thoughts are still evolving.’’ Black male, 5th year physics Ph.D. student.

‘‘I gained teaching and leadership experience. This experience has shown me how

much I really enjoy teaching despite the shyness in my personality. The joy of

seeing a student learn supersedes my insecurities. The burden I feel when I look

at the problems that face our communities, compels me to share what I have

learned from school, so that other can break cycles and achieve the best in life.’’

Black male, 5th year Ph.D. electrical engineering student

Teachers also provided unsolicited comments about the partnership:

‘‘I need to tell you how much [the Fellow’s] presence has meant to me. This has

been my first year back in teaching after 23 years in industry and I had little

idea of the level of the problems I would encounter. [The Fellow] has served as

a confidant, a sounding board, another set of eyes, and a friend during this year.

Further he has added a creative element by way of his ideas and suggestions.

His contribution has been significant, not only to the program here but also to

my sanity. I have had a sense of isolation because of the limited adult interaction

available here and even though [the Fellow’s] days here were limited, they were

a breath of adult communication. His insight and willingness to delve into what

we were seeing was useful. We have evolved many understandings of the problems here. . .and after the summer break I will be refreshed to start again.’’

Written by a participating physics teacher

‘‘Hi. Last day of school here. Paperwork completed, reflecting for a moment.

Wanted to commend to you on [the two Fellows’] work. They made this old teacher a believer. [One Fellow] brought a steadiness and steadfastness with her.

Dedicated to labs, and slugging it out. [The other Fellow] brought fire and brimstone. He gave us 100-plus summer enrichment programs of which our kids are

attending. . ., brought us to Calvin Mackie’s talk, Lego Mindstorm, aided in

interviewing Governor’s Honors nominee, and big-brothered one of our students

helping him gain admittance to NC A&T. I would term this year a success. See

you soon!’’ Written by a participating chemistry teacher

Evaluation of the STEP program’s effect on graduate students, using the assessment methodology described earlier, has revealed positive outcomes in:

• Academic Content Mastery: Graduate students teaching high school students

must convey knowledge so that it is comprehensible to students who come

from varying achievement levels and backgrounds. This requires that knowledge be thoroughly understood, condensed and distilled to improve its efficacy, a skill that has incomparable value for graduate students.

• Teaching Interests: Hands-on teaching experiences provide graduate Fellows

with early opportunities to elucidate their interests in teaching as a profession—whether at a high school or college level. These teaching experiences require novel approaches to conveying knowledge to students, thereby encouraging creativity in a Fellow’s own research objectives.

• Academic Efficiency: A graduate student’s skill at time management strengthens through time spent with students—both inside and outside of the classroom. Most graduate Fellows willingly spend more time contributing to the

program than is required. To accommodate this, graduate students conduct

their research and schoolwork in a more efficient manner.

• Professional Skills: Working in a high school classroom helps Fellows improve

their leadership, communication, and pedagogical skills and better-define

their future professional and academic goals and objectives. It also provides

them with models of rewarding community service that are applicable to their

future career, whether in education or industry.

• Presentation and Publications: During the first two years of the project STEP

Fellows have participated in seven professional presentations, co-authored

three conference papers, and attended three NSF workshops and seven professional meetings in their role as STEP Fellows.

66

Teacher and School Outcomes

The teachers and school administrators have all been highly enthusiastic about

their participation with the STEP program. Many have stated that STEP is unlike

any other school enhancement program they have ever seen, and that among all of

their school ‘‘partners,’’ Georgia Tech is their best one and is the only one that actually provides meaningful classroom help. The benefits to the school, teacher, and

students most often mentioned to the evaluation team have been:

• The injection of fresh energy into the classroom by the Fellows.

• The value to teachers of understanding the cutting-edge research that takes

place at the university, and the value to high school students of being exposed

to what the science and mathematics are used for at a higher level.

• The ability of the Fellows to provide novel and different ways of thinking

about, and presenting, science and mathematics content, and to introduce the

students to educational enrichment opportunities outside of their school.

• The access that the teachers and students gain to science materials, supplies,

and equipment.

• The effectiveness with which the Fellows are able to transform the high

school students’ thinking about science from a view that science is a bunch

of facts, to an understanding that science is a process, and a way of thinking.

• The additional time the Fellows provide for teachers to do other necessary

school-related duties. Fellows also help teachers keep their ‘‘sanity’’ under difficult conditions, hopefully increasing the likelihood that the good teachers

will stay at these challenging schools.

• The Fellows, particularly the African American Fellows, serve as invaluable

mentors for the predominantly minority high school students. They are role

models, tutors and cheerleaders, and always fight against the tendency of

schools to lower the bar for minority students.

• Teachers gain access to summer research experiences at Georgia Tech,

through the Georgia Industrial Fellowships for Teachers (GIFT) program, and

can build personal connections with faculty and lab personnel. After Year 1,

one STEP teacher participated in GIFT. During the summer after Year 2, 13

teachers from STEP schools participated in research internships at Georgia

Tech as part of the Georgia Tech (GIFT) program, supported primarily by Research Experiences for Teachers NSF grant supplements.

Though many of these benefits are difficult to quantify, they are very tangible to

the individual teachers. For the four overwhelmingly African American schools in

the program, STEP is the reform initiative within the science department. It provides the teachers with a sense of being special, and a hope that together the school

and Georgia Tech can improve the situation they face and help them direct their

students towards productive and gainful careers. In essence, the partnership provides the teachers and schools with an invaluable door to Georgia Tech, through

which pass lab and classroom resources, science and engineering faculty speakers,

high school students on laboratory tours, admissions officers bearing crucial advice,

and undergraduate student volunteers. These are all types of resources that are traditionally unknown and unavailable at the African American schools but are commonplace at majority-Caucasian affluent schools (that each send dozens of students

per year to Georgia Tech, and where many of the parents are connected to the university, either as an alumnus, a faculty member, or a member of the corporate elite).

These ‘‘ripples’’ of resources extending from the partnership core are vital to the

growth and vitality of the partnership; Fulton County’s Tri-Cities High School STEP

program, described below, gives a good example of this ripple effect in action. TriCities and Georgia Tech had no existing relationship before STEP began in 2001.

Tri-Cities has now hosted seven graduate students and two undergraduates over

a three-year period. The partnership ripples include: 1) High School students initiating a junior chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) (linked

to the Georgia Tech NSBE chapter) which hosts academic activities and competitions, 2) Four science teachers participating in summer research internships in

Georgia Tech Biology and Electrical Engineering laboratories, 3) Two teams of high

school students conducting research projects at Georgia Tech, supported by the Siemens Foundation, 4) A College of Computing professor and Ph.D. graduate student

piloting a new computer-based art program at the school, 5) A science teacher and

faculty member from Aerospace Engineering collaborating on a grant to create a

high school research-based Astronomy class, 6) Students from Tri-Cities American

History classes exchanging visits with Georgia Tech students enrolled in a Social

Policy course, 7) Tri-Cities students participating in internet conversations with stuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
67

dents at Georgia Tech, and students in Russia and Sweden, 8) The minority recruitment team from Georgia visiting the school multiple times, 9) Teams of high school

students participating in a Lego Mindstorm competition sponsored by Mechanical

Engineering, 10) High school students visiting Georgia Tech to hear motivational

speakers, 11) Students and teachers attending Biotechnology demonstrations, and

12) A relationship of trust and respect developing between people at Tri-Cities and

Georgia Tech.

The Evolution of the STEP Partnerships

As we are in the third year of STEP in several of our partner schools, we are now

in a position to evaluate the initial success of our partnership building, and to look

towards sustainability. The following evolutionary model of the development of a

university-high school partnership based on graduate Fellows is now becoming apparent. It is also apparent that these stages cannot be rushed since the trust necessary for building true partnerships takes time to develop, and is based on actions

over time, not on abstract plans.

Year 1—Initial Steps

Goal—To develop an understanding by both university and school partners of the

program’s potential at that school.

• Graduate Fellows are introduced, and form personal bonds with school staff.

• School personnel develop an understanding of program possibilities, trust

about university motives, and confidence of sustained university interest.

• The university partners analyze school’s use of Fellows and the partnering capability of the school staff.

• The university partners assess whether the ‘‘need’’ is there-Does the partnership have the potential to have a major effect, or is it merely icing for a school

which functions fairly well already?

Year 2—Maturation and Expansion of the partnership.

Goal—To establish the university as a ‘‘real’’ partner—i.e., one that can be trusted

to continue for the long haul.

• The school transitions to a second graduate Fellow team. Teachers and school

personnel learn that the partnership is not dependent on specific graduate

students.

• The team of teachers and graduate students develop a broader concept about

what the school’s needs are, and how the university might interface with

them.

• The network of teachers with ‘‘ownership’’ of the partnership expands.

• Multiple connections are developed between the high school and academic

units and organizations at the university, including linking schools to particular research labs.

• Teachers are encouraged to come to the university as summer research interns.

• The team begins developing high school research teams to come to university

labs.

• Undergraduate students or additional graduate students join the school

teams where the partnership capacity allows it.

Year 3—Beginning Institutionalization.

Goal—To increase the number of ‘‘owners’’ of the partnership.

• Schools transition to a third graduate Fellow team and university-school connections expand.

• School system personnel become involved in the graduate Fellow summer

training program.

• The partnership gains increased visibility and ownership among high-level

administrators from both school system and university.

• Schools are encouraged to actively instigate additional school-university connections, thereby empowering teachers to ask for what they need.

• Staff seeks out and promotes partnerships and sponsors from the private sector.

68

All of the STEP partnerships are actively evolving and expanding. The goal of the

next five years of STEP is to solidify the partnerships, creating enough linkages

that the connections become sustainable without the infusion of NSF funds.

Conclusion

Though there is a current national emphasis on developing partnerships between

universities and K–12 schools, there has been little discussion on exactly what is

meant by a ‘‘university-school’’ partnership, and very few theoretical frameworks

exist for describing the best way of achieving sustainable and effective partnerships

in education. The Partnership Conceptual Model described in this paper and drawn

from the partnership literature from the field of Public Policy emphasizes the importance of pre-existing conditions (in terms of embeddedness and strategic needs) and

the structure of the partnership (in terms of formation and operations) when predicting the success of the project outcomes. STEP is a partnership that began with

congruent strategic needs and a high degree of embeddedness with the school system administration, but a low degree of embeddedness where it really counts, namely at the individual school level. Therefore high initial transaction costs, in the form

of large amounts of time and effort, were required to develop the connections with

the schools, and the necessary personal trust, that ultimately have led to a deeply

embedded partnership and a higher chance for long-term successful outcomes.

With STEP the emphasis has been placed on the development of a healthy partnership and the final outcomes are allowed to evolve from the partnership. In our

experience, this is not the most common orientation of educational partnerships;

many are driven by particular prescribed activities, or based on curricular units developed by higher education. As illustration, one of the NSF reviewers for the STEP

Up! GK–12 continuation grant stated:

‘‘The process of creating the partnerships and working with the teachers is not

new, original nor particularly creative. What is novel is the creating of the partnerships first and then letting what happens happen. This takes courage and

faith in the participants. It also takes very secure college level faculty who are

willing to treat their high school teachers as peers. This is obviously happening

here with very imaginative results.’’

Our experience suggests that the partnership itself is particularly important when

trying to connect and effect change in entities with very different cultures, such as

majority-white universities and majority-black schools. Only when the partnership

is strong, and the different partners have trust in one another, can change take

place. And only when there are clear mutual benefits and trust can a partnership

outlast the external funding stream and sustain over time.

Biographic Information

MARION C. USSELMAN

Dr. Marion C. Usselman is a Research Scientist at the Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC) at Georgia Tech. Marion

received her Ph.D. in biophysics from Johns Hopkins University and focuses on equity issues in education and K–12 educational reform. Marion is a co-PI of the STEP

NSF grant, and a co-PI on the Alternative Approaches to Evaluating STEM Education Partnerships NSF grant.

DONNA C. LLEWELLYN

Dr. Donna C. Llewellyn is the Director of the Center for the Enhancement of

Teaching and Learning (CETL) and an Adjunct Associate Professor in Industrial

and Systems Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. Her current areas of

research are in equity of engineering education, and assessment of instruction.

Donna is the PI of the STEP NSF grant.

DARA V. O’NEIL

Ms. Dara V. O’Neil is a Research Associate at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, and a doctoral candidate in Information and Telecommunications Policy in the

Georgia Tech School of Public Policy. She is a co-PI on the Alternative Approaches

to Evaluating STEM Education Partnerships NSF grant.

GORDON KINGSLEY

Dr. Gordon Kingsley is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy at

Georgia Institute of Technology. Gordon is the project evaluator for the STEP NSF

grant, and PI on the Alternative Approaches to Evaluating STEM Education Partnerships NSF grant. His area of research interests are the interactions of publicVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
69

private partnerships to harness developments in science and technology, and the nature and assessment of educational partnerships.

70

BIOGRAPHY FOR PAUL OHME

Primary Program Responsibilities

CEISMC Director

Educational Background

Ph.D. Mathematics (Differential Equations). Florida State University.

MA Mathematics. University of Alabama.

BA Mathematics/Minor: Physics. Huntington College.

Administrative Experience:

Georgia Institute of Technology—Director, CEISMC—1996–Present

Northeast Louisiana University

Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs—1993–1996

Member, President’s Cabinet—1993–1996

Member, NLU Strategic Planning Committee—1994–1996

Head, Department of Computer Science—1984–1993

Coordinator of Computer Science—1980–1984

Mississippi College—Coordinator of Academic Computing—1973–1979

Teaching Experience:

Northeast Louisiana University

Professor of Computer Science—1987–1993

Associate Professor of Computer Science—1980–1987

Clemson University

Visiting Associate Professor of Mathematics (NSF Grant)—1979–1980

Mississippi College—Associate professor of Mathematics—1973–1979

Franklin & Marshall College

Assistant Professor of Mathematics (Consultant for integrating computers into

the mathematics curriculum)—1971–1973

Florida State University—Graduate Assistant—1966–1971

Mississippi College—Instructor—1964–1966

71

72

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Dr. Ohme.

We will now hear from Mr. Michael Cassidy.

STATEMENT OF C. MICHAEL CASSIDY, PRESIDENT, GEORGIA

RESEARCH ALLIANCE

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Davis, good morning.

It is a distinct pleasure and honor for me to join this discussion

today and to provide testimony to this committee on a subject that

is of great importance to me professionally and personally, as I am

sure it is to each of you.

As noted in my biography, I am the President of Georgia Research Alliance. We are a private, non-profit organization with an

economic development mission. We were formed in 1990 from the

vision of the business leadership of this state.

They saw the need to bring together business, Georgia’s leading

research universities and state government in a partnership to ensure that the innovation capacity of our university research enterprise was directed toward bringing economic prosperity and a superior quality of life to Georgia, the region and perhaps the Nation.

The stated goal was, and is, for Georgia to be recognized in the

top tier of states with an innovation-driven economy. Why is it important for Georgia to be thought of as a high-tech state? It is well

known, certainly by this committee, that high-tech jobs—especially

the jobs in fields such as computers and communications or the biosciences, attract our most highly educated workers who in turn

earn the highest salaries. This high-tech workforce is the key to

building very successful, growth-oriented companies that lead to

sustainable economic growth.

High-tech industries are in fact characterized as the ones that

are driven by entrepreneurial energy and imaginative thinking.

These are the industries that develop the sophisticated tools which

impact businesses of every size and translate discoveries made in

our research laboratories into the technological advances that are

so important to our quality of life.

We see a situation today where the development and use of technology is strongly influencing the distribution of economic growth

in the United States. Clearly this distribution of economic growth

is not occurring uniformly in all states and regions. Economists of

course have a name for this, they call it geographic clustering.

What it means very simply is that there are going to be the proverbial haves and have-nots. There will be winners and losers. Our

challenge, the challenge from our board of trustees, the expectation

of our Governor is ensuring that Georgia does emerge as one of the

winners. But an even greater challenge, and certainly one that this

committee is concerned with, is to make certain that America sustains its reputation as an innovator and continues on a path to

prosperity.

Over the past 13 years, Georgia has been quite successful in

moving toward this goal. We have brought a cadre of some of the

world’s brightest and best researchers to our universities. We have

provided them and their colleagues with the specialized laboratories and equipment they need to lead research and development

programs with significant economic development potential. And we

73

have created programs to move innovation from the laboratory to

the economy.

In fact, we can track some 120 new high-tech startup companies

that are related to our investments in recruiting top scientists and

developing a world-class university research infrastructure. This is

the good news that I have just shared with our Governor as our

legislative session gets underway in Georgia.

But all of this success will fall apart unless we are able to meet

the challenge that this committee is addressing. We must be able

to provide a workforce with the math and science skills that are

so vital to helping these companies grow, and our more established

ones thrive.

We also need to continue to build a university research workforce

that generates the innovative technologies that lead to more

growth of the high-tech industries in our state.

The statistics in Georgia are disquieting, particularly to an organization such as ours that is expected to improve the economic

landscape of our state. As I understand our situation, in the year

2000 our 4th graders ranked 43rd nationally in science and our 8th

graders ranked 42nd. Our percentage of college students seeking

degrees in science and engineering continues to fall. Women and

minorities are still under-represented in the sciences and engineering. And all of this while the retirement of the baby boomers is expected to leave a two million job gap in professional, technical labor

markets.

Recently Georgia came in second in its efforts to recruit a major

vaccine manufacturing facility to the state. Mr. Chairman, second

really doesn’t count in this business. The facility went to North

Carolina. One of the key reasons cited was the perception that

Georgia could not provide the high-tech workforce that such a facility requires.

So we know that we have a challenge. But I am pleased to share

with you a few things that are happening in Georgia that can help

us to move forward.

Last June a group of Atlanta entrepreneurs and educators from

several universities and secondary schools began meeting informally to discuss what could be done to improve science education

for K through eight students in Georgia. They have since formed

the Georgia Alliance for Science Education to develop a blueprint

and action plan that will ensure that all Georgia students become

scientifically literate citizens of the 21st century. They have also

joined with the National Science Resources Center, the National

Academies and the Smithsonian Institution to sponsor a Call to

Greater Collaborative Action, a conference on improving science

education programs for Georgia’s K through eight students. This is

particularly noteworthy as it is a grassroots effort intended to deal

with a giant problem. And as I will recommend to you, this initiative will be driven by a public/private collaborative.

Finally, let me speak on a personal note. I have two young sons.

The older one wants to be a fireman when he grows up. This has

been his ambition since before he could talk. I believe he has

stayed committed to this goal, in part, because he has role models

that he can see and understand and talk to and brag about to his

friends. And believe me, every day my wife and I try to impress

74

on him that he needs to understand his math studies because

today firefighters are expected to be part engineer. So we have

some leverage. But in the high-tech world, in the world of science,

engineering and math, we have not presented role models for our

kids. We have not demonstrated how the research scientist or the

entrepreneur or even the electrical engineer can be a hero, improve

our lives and maybe even save lives.

I will close with two suggestions. One from a professional perspective and one from a personal perspective. The challenge ahead

will require the close collaboration of business, the educational system and our political leadership to truly meet the challenges that

you are addressing and to find the answers that you seek. But let

me be clear. By collaboration, I mean the active participation of all

parties, not merely one sector turning to another asking for more

money. An active collaboration is what has made the Georgia Research Alliance successful, and I believe that such a model will be

the right basis for what you are about.

And from a personal perspective, let’s show our kids some heroes

from the world of math and science. Let’s brag about what they

have accomplished and what it means to our nation and to the

world.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cassidy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. MICHAEL CASSIDY

Mr. Chairman, esteemed Members of this committee—good morning. My name is

Michael Cassidy and it is a distinct pleasure and honor for me to join in this discussion today and to provide testimony to this committee on a subject that is of great

importance to me professionally and personally, as I am sure it is to each of you.

As my biography notes, I am President of the Georgia Research Alliance. We are

a private, non-profit organization with an economic development mission. We were

formed in 1990 from the vision of the business leadership of the state.

They saw the need to bring together business, Georgia’s leading research universities and State government in a partnership to ensure that the innovation capacity

of our university research enterprise was directed toward bringing economic prosperity and a superior quality of life to Georgia, the region and perhaps the Nation.

The stated goal was, and is, for Georgia to be recognized in the top-tier of states

with an innovation-driven economy. Why is it important for Georgia to be thought

as a high tech state?

It is well known, certainly by this committee, that high tech jobs—especially the

jobs in fields such as computers and communications or the biosciences—attract our

most highly educated workers, who, in turn, earn the highest salaries. This high

tech workforce is the key to building very successful, growth-oriented companies

that lead to sustainable economic growth.

High tech industries are, in fact, characterized as the ones that are driven by entrepreneurial energy and imaginative thinking. These are the industries that develop the sophisticated tools which impact businesses of every size and that translate discoveries made in our research laboratories into the technological advances

that are so important to our quality of life.

We see a situation today where the development and use of technology is strongly

influencing the distribution of economic growth in the United States.

Clearly, this distribution of economic growth is not occurring uniformly in all

states and regions. Economists of course have a name for this—they call it geographic clustering. What it means, very simply, is that there are going to be the

proverbial haves and have-nots. There will be winners and losers.

Our challenge, the challenge from our board and the expectation of our governor

is ensuring that Georgia does emerge as one of the winners. But an even greater

challenge, and certainly one that this committee is concerned with, is to make certain that America sustains its reputation as an innovator and continues on a path

to prosperity.

75

Over the past 13 years, Georgia has been quite successful in moving toward this

goal. We have brought a cadre of some of the world’s brightest and best researchers

to our universities. We have provided them and their colleagues with the specialized

laboratories and equipment that they need to lead research and development programs with significant economic development potential. And we have created programs to move innovation from the laboratory to the economy.

In fact, we can track some 120 new high tech startup companies that are related

to our investments in recruiting top scientists and developing a world-class university research infrastructure.

This is the good news that I have just shared with our Governor as our legislative

session gets underway in Georgia.

But all of this success will fall apart unless we are able to meet the challenge

that this committee is addressing. We must be able to provide a workforce with the

math and science skills that are so vital to helping these new companies—and our

more established ones—thrive and grow.

We also need to continue to build a university research workforce that generates

the innovative technologies that lead to more growth of the high tech industries in

our State.

The statistics in Georgia are disquieting, particularly to an organization such as

ours that is expected to improve the economic landscape of our State. As I understand our situation, in the year 2000, our fourth graders ranked 43rd nationally in

science and our 8th graders ranked 42nd. Our percentage of college students seeking degrees in science and engineering continues to fall. Women and minorities are

still under-represented in the sciences and engineering.

And all this while the retirement of the baby boomers is expected to leave a two

million job gap in professional technical labor markets.

Recently, Georgia came in second in its efforts to recruit a major vaccine manufacturing facility to the state. Second really doesn’t count in this business. The facility

went to North Carolina. One of the key reasons cited was the perception that Georgia could not provide the high tech workforce that such a facility requires.

We know that we have a challenge. But I am pleased to share with you a few

things that are happening in Georgia that can help us to move forward.

Last June a group of Atlanta entrepreneurs and educators from several universities and secondary schools began meeting informally to discuss what could be done

to improve science education for K–8 students in Georgia.

They have since formed the Georgia Alliance for Science Education to develop a

blueprint and action plan that will ensure that all Georgia students become scientifically literate citizens of the 21st century.

They have also joined with the National Science Resources Center, the National

Academies, and the Smithsonian Institution to sponsor ‘‘A Call to Greater Collaborative Action,’’ a conference on improving science education programs for Georgia’s

K–8 students.

This is particularly noteworthy because this is a grass roots effort intended to

deal with a giant problem. And as I will recommend to you, this initiative will be

driven by a public/private collaborative.

Finally, let me speak on a personal note. I have two young sons. The older one

wants to be a fireman when he grows up. This has been his ambition since before

he could talk. I believe he has stayed committed to this goal, in part, because he

has role models he can see and understand and talk to and brag about to his

friends.

And believe me, every day we try to impress on him that he needs to understand

his math studies because today, firefighters are expected to be part engineer. So we

have some leverage.

But in the high tech world, in the world of science, engineering and math, we

have not presented role models for our kids. We have not demonstrated how the research scientist or the entrepreneur or even the electrical engineer can be a hero,

improve our lives, and maybe even save lives.

I will close with two suggestions—one from a professional perspective and one

from a personal perspective.

The challenge ahead will require the close collaboration of business, the educational system and our political leadership to truly meet the challenges that you

are addressing and to find the answers that you seek. But let me be clear. By collaboration I mean the active participation of all parties, not merely one sector turning to another asking for more money.

An active collaboration is what has made the Georgia Research Alliance successful, and I believe that such a model will be the right basis for what you are about.

76

And from a personal perspective, let’s show our kids some heroes from the world

of math and science. Let’s brag about what they have accomplished and what it

means to our nation and to the world.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.

BIOGRAPHY FOR C. MICHAEL CASSIDY

Mr. Cassidy is President of the Georgia Research Alliance, a strategic partnership

of Georgia’s research universities, joined by the business community and State government, whose purpose is to leverage the State’s research capabilities into economic development results. Before joining the Alliance in 1993, Mr. Cassidy managed the Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC), Georgia’s technology

incubator. Prior to that he worked for the IBM Corporation were he held various

staff and management assignments. Mr. Cassidy holds a Master’s degree in Technology and Science Policy from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a BBA degree in Marketing from Georgia State University.

Mr. Cassidy represents the State of Georgia on the Southern Technology Council

and the Southern Governors’ Association Advisory Committee on Research, Development and Technology. He consults with several states on issues of science and technology policy and economic development. Mr. Cassidy is on the Board of Directors

of the Southeastern Life Sciences Association, Georgia Advanced Technology Ventures, the SciTrek Museum, and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. He is on the

Board of Visitors of the Grady Health System and a member of the Commerce Club

of Atlanta. Mr. Cassidy enjoys sailing, swimming and walking.

77

78

DISCUSSION

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy.

That completes the formal testimony of our witnesses. I know the

students who are in attendance here this morning at this Full

Committee hearing of the House Science Committee have been rotating in and out, of course, depending on class schedules, and you

may not have heard the full testimony of each and every witness.

They are submitting—have submitted a written report and, of

course, that will be eventually available in the Congressional

Record. But if any of you want one or all of these written testimonies, I can assure you that we will get them to you.

We will now get into the next phase of the hearing, the Q&A

phase. I think Congressman Davis would agree with me that we

all, Members of Congress, have a lot of town hall meetings, we call

them in our districts. This is a very important part of what we do

in regard to constituent services. But I have—and I am sure he

would agree—I learn more during that phase where we let folks

ask questions of us. It stimulates a two-way dialogue. A lot of times

we might not know the answer to a question, but then we get an

opportunity to go back and find out exactly what we need to know.

So this really—if you miss some of the actual testimony of the participants, the best part is what we are getting into right now. I understand we do have some time where we will be taking questions

from the audience for any of the participants.

I am going to start the questioning and after a short period of

time, then I will turn that over to Congressman Davis and then we

will follow with questions from you.

Let me start actually with Mr. Cassidy. Mr. Cassidy, not long

ago there was a Business Week cover that asked the question: ‘‘Is

Your Job Next?’’ Clearly the issue of offshore out-sourcing and

American competitiveness is of great concern to Georgia and to the

Nation as a whole. We all read every day about loss of more manufacturing jobs. Just recently in this 11th Congressional District, of

which we are a part right here in South Cobb, down in Troup

County, in LaGrange, we lost another 550 jobs when West Point

Stephens, a textile manufacturing plant announced impending layoffs.

I believe the key to American competitiveness is competing on

our own terms, not trying to see who can pay their workers the

least. How do you think we can remain competitive, and what role

does education and training play in creating our comparative advantage against these other countries that are taking some of our

jobs?

Mr. CASSIDY. I think the key, Mr. Chairman, is continued focus

on innovation. You are familiar with the work of the Council on

Competitiveness and the issues that they are looking at of how to

continue to fuel innovation in our country. It was not that long ago

that industry aligned and began to look at the issues of moving

jobs offshore, but specifically in the manufacturing area. While this

was of great concern to a number of us in the country, it really did

not capture our attention because we were sure that our future

would be based on the expansion of a high-technology economy of

research and development, but today, we see these same jobs going

79

offshore. So we are just going to have to continue to pour our efforts into innovating, to leading to discoveries that have really led

our country to the heights that it is at today. All of this will require

strength in mathematics, in the sciences, in the engineering and it

has to start, as we have heard from our other panelists this morning, at the very early stages where we can capture the enthusiasm

of our children so that they will want to pursue these degrees going

forward. We have to sustain that workforce. Other countries are

way far out ahead of us today.

Mr. GINGREY. And I asked that—thank you, Mr. Cassidy. I asked

that question because while there is no question that we have lost

a lot of manufacturing jobs, not just in Tennessee and Georgia, but

across the Nation, manufacturing jobs are actually being lost

worldwide. While we may have taken a little bit more of a hit than

China and some of these other countries, we are still losing manufacturing jobs. The point is, it is because of increased productivity.

It is not just that we are losing jobs necessarily to these other

counties. There is some of that of course. But the fact remains that

technology, high-tech—and as you pointed out, an increased emphasis on math and science and engineering are going to hopefully

create more and better jobs for the future.

This is a question really for all of the witnesses. According to a

survey by the United States Department of Education fewer than

half of high school seniors surveyed indicated that they liked mathematics, a proportion similar to the proportion who felt that they

were good at it. What effect does this math anxiety have on student achievement and what can we do to overcome it? I think I will

ask our student valedictorian, Ms. Purcell, to take that one first.

Ms. PURCELL. I find I enjoy math most obviously when I understand it. There are some things where you need the concept gone

over many, many times. I personally struggled more with very abstract things. I guess there is not as much motivation to try to understand it if you do not feel you will need it. I think some of my

peers, not so much in the IB program, but others taking calculus,

if they do not understand, they kind of feel like, well I will not

need it, so I do not have to worry about struggling to understand

it. I think that is probably the biggest problem with students saying that they do not understand their math. Especially my peers

in their senior year are taking a class, but they do not feel they

will need it in their career, they are not going to want to spend a

lot of time studying their senior year and worrying a lot about not

understanding their math subjects. So I think that if some of them

maybe had had an opportunity to take it earlier when they were

a little more focused on high school success, and not looking so

much toward next year in college, that they may have put more effort into it or gone in to get after-school help and such.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank you, Ms. Purcell. You know, again, the reason I asked that question—and I want the other witnesses to respond as well briefly. But I am sure there is a certain amount of

grade point average fear in signing up for the tough math and

science courses. What do the other witnesses feel about that? Let

us just go right down the line briefly.

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, science and math obviously are

very closely interrelated. I think one of the biggest things is presVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
80

entation. That is where we have to constantly work and go back

and hone our skills as teachers. Students have to come with a certain amount of skills and it begins day one. If we do not attack

them when they come with a mind willing to learn and take advantage of that, it is pretty hard to go back and recapture that a little

bit later on. If somebody gets weak in math skills we have to now

develop a program that allows them to catch up to where they

should be when they start out. That sometimes is a problem because if they do not have success in that program you created to

catch them up, then they get frustrated. I think the biggest sell is

to say first of all you can do math. We have to stop telling people

about how hard it is and show them ways to do it. When I first

started out in science, I hated science, but I got a teacher who

showed me some ways that I could work in science. Since I was a

high-school athlete, he said if you practice this stuff this way—and

I use that in my class. It is probably 90 percent presentation, what

we really need to focus on in order to create—because we have to

create an atmosphere of excitement. Nobody wants to do anything

that is boring. Math is certainly not boring, it is a key that we

have to have. So I think presentation is a big role.

Mr. HILL. I will—I will second those comments. I think the role

that the state—the Department of Education and the state can

play is ensuring that teachers have all the necessary tools, such

that they can make those exciting presentations. We need to stress

content knowledge in science and math and revising the quality

core curriculum or these performance standards and providing examples of what it means to have a quality presentation in a certain

subject area so that Mr. McClure can compare his presentation and

his students’ work to high quality work in California, high quality

work in New York. I think a lot of times teachers unfortunately do

not have access to resources that are present across this country

and the role that we can play to provide access to those resources

to ensure that there is content knowledge and ensure that there is

ongoing training or staff development.

I am sure you can remember when you were in the state legislature, it seemed as if there was always a notion to cut staff development, to cut professional development. If someone had already gone

to school, why do you need to continue to provide training? There

are always new things coming on in science and new ways to teach

math. So we just have to make sure the resources are there so that

the teachers and the students can do a good job in those subject

areas.

Dr. OHME. I think Ms. Purcell hit the nail on the head when she

said that she enjoys it when she understands it. I think that is true

of all of us. If we do not understand something, we tend to shy

away from it. I think that beginning early on with our young people, we must ensure that they get a conceptual understanding of

the topic. Certainly there are certain basic skills that have to be

mastered to understand what skills go with the concept. That is

driven sometimes by assessment. So I think when our assessment

is based off of simply facts of basic computation and not looking at

conceptual understanding early on, we as leaders are guiding people away from the concepts. When it’s based off memorization,

there is a limit as to how much we can memorize. Some students

81

by sixth grade, their memorization fails them, some by ninth grade.

I have seen students memorize all the way through freshman year

in college and then hit a course of differential equations and that

is where their memory work—memorizations would not work anymore. So if you want a student to understand, they have to understand the concept. The reference is also made that one way to bring

understanding and relevance to students is making sure it is done

in an allocation setting. So you do not do the mathematics for

mathematic’s sake purely, but you do the mathematics as well as

its applications and bring out the applications.

This comes back to the in-depth knowledge of the subject matter.

A teacher who only surfacely knows the material is not going to be

able to stress concept or application. This is where we can use our

university people, research and mathematicians, scientists and engineers to partner with the teachers to help bring the concepts,

bring the applications, bring current the applications. Then we

make sure that a child does not go from grade to grade without

mastering concept.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Cassidy.

Mr. CASSIDY. I think there are two things that I would mention.

From my own experience, math was not a strong point. It was a

long time ago when I was in high school, but our football coach was

my math teacher. I hope things have changed, but I fear that today

we still have far too many teachers in math—especially in the

sciences—teaching out of field. I know a good deal of that is related

to budget constraints and this is not a good time to be talking

about that, but I think something does have to be done to address

the issue of teaching within field and then really following on what

each of the others have said having those teachers be able to connect with their students.

Now one other item is the use of technology in the schools today.

While I am a very, very strong proponent of technology-enhanced

learning, all the new devices and web-based and computer-based

tools and techniques to help teach kids science. Ms. Purcell talked

about the excitement of cutting open the calf’s heart. Well, we got

to do those things in school when I was a kid and that made

science exciting. I do not know if it is as exciting looking at it on

a computer screen today. I am not sure that that captures the enthusiasm. You certainly do not have the smell of formaldehyde all

over you.

So while we need to continue to look at all of the wonderful

things with technology-enhanced learning, I think there are appropriate applications and there are other times when kids just have

to be able to experience things the way that we did when we

learned science.

Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank all of you for those answers. I had

a follow-up question but I am going to hold that because I have

gone way beyond my time. I think at this point I will turn it over

to Congressman Davis for some of his questions.

Mr. DAVIS. Again, thank you for the testimony you have given

and for the response to the questions that you have given us as

well.

In your comments, Mr. Cassidy, one of the things that you alluded to is that we probably need more role models, more than just

82

sports figures, more than movie stars or musicians or those who

make huge sums of money. We need someone whose life has been

successful. We have some of those, folks like Bill Gates. As we review the last 100 years of aerospace, Orville and Wilbur Wright,

which certainly was a part of my upbringing to study about that

and look at how we have evolved—not evolved, but how we have

through research and development, education and knowledge, that

we have gone from that small lightweight plane that flew for a few

hundred feet to what we are doing today in aviation. So we do have

those, whether it is Eli Whitney; George Washington Carver, one

of the minorities, was an investor and inventor in agriculture in

our country. So we still have those role models. I think sometime

we do not do enough at the high school level, K through 12 or K

through 8 to remind our children, our students, that these are folks

that you can pattern your life after.

And in making that comment, Dr. Ohme, you basically said that

we have to prepare teachers better. We need to bring not just better educated teachers but teachers who can relate to the student

in the classroom to where that child will learn from that teacher.

When I grew up in the small community I grew up in, my grandparents lived close by. They were role models for me. Not as much

of a role model as my parents, my mother and my father. But probably perhaps outside of my family, the biggest role model that I

had growing up was the teachers. I can tell you their names, how

they felt toward me, and how I felt toward them. I do not know

whether we have lost that or not. I certainly hope that we have

not. I do not think my daughters when they went to grade school

and high school as they related their stories—they still have those

feelings that that teacher is a role model to them. But I think that

we are seeing changes made in how we look at education.

The question I guess that I would ask each of you, Mr. McClure,

Mr. Hill, Dr. Ohme, maybe Ms. Purcell, even you because you are

a student: what approaches are possible for attracting more qualified individuals including mid-career and retired scientists, mathematicians and engineers to careers as science and math teachers

and particularly to attracting minority candidates, perhaps? Either

of you or all of you. And what are we doing today?

Mr. HILL. One program that the State of Georgia has implemented is Georgia TAP, basically which is an alternative certification program. It allows those folks who were in careers other

than education to maybe make a mid-career adjustment, make a

mid-career change. Those folks do not have to go through a college

of education but they have to show and demonstrate that they have

content knowledge by passing the so-called PRAXIS Test. All of the

testimony that I have heard with regard to the PRAXIS Test in

math, if one achieves a passing score on that test, they clearly understand the content knowledge of math. But I think we cannot ignore the teaching side of it because I am sure we all had professors

in college and graduate school who were brilliant but could not convey the knowledge that was inside their heads.

So the alternative education program that Georgia has enacted

requires not only content knowledge but some type of mentorship

and training to expose these different individuals to what it means

to teach. It is very important in elementary and in K–8 I think to

83

ensure that you can connect with these young kids, maybe less important in high school, but it is still very important.

Ms. PURCELL. In the IB Program—I am sorry. In my experience

my teachers are a wonderful group of diverse and accomplished individuals. Many of them were professionals before they became

teachers. I think that they choose to teach and they love to teach

because they get to teach a group of students that really want to

learn. My peers and I are very much interested in learning and in

succeeding. I think that drives them to continue. It is not so much

of a chore, it is a more positive experience. I guess then you are

back to the same question, how do you make the students want to

learn? I think those two things go hand in hand.

Mr. DAVIS. I sense that you have a special school here. You are

obviously—it is special when you talk about being 99.5 percent in

the top category. That is extremely special, if you are from any part

of this nation, to be in that category.

Are the students here from the surrounding communities or do

they live in this neighborhood? I mean how has this—from your

perspective, how has this high school become so successful?

Ms. PURCELL. Personally I—the IB Program pulls from all Cobb

County, so they do not live close by. But I was districted to come

to this high school anyway. So I have maintained ties I guess with

the regular student body who do live in this area. I think that obviously the IB Program has helped make it more successful just because interaction with different kinds of people who have grown up

in different areas. The success comes from both sides of the, I

guess, Campbell student body.

Mr. HILL. I think there are several points I want to mention.

One, I think the profession does not have the honor and recognition

that it probably did in earlier decades. I think we must analyze

ways that we can bring prestige to the profession. If you look at

the starting salary for a teacher versus an engineer, it is not necessarily encouraging.

The second thing I want to look at is the retention rate of teachers in their first three to four years of teaching. We find that there

is a tremendous loss of teachers in that period of time. I think we

have to look at that seriously. I think the working conditions of the

teachers is not conducive to encouraging teachers to stay. If you’re

an engineer and you need a couple of hundred dollars worth of supplies, most likely your firm would provide them to you, yet we find

teachers buying supplies out of their own money. It is not so much

the $200, that is a give or take kind of thing. But it is the image

and the perception and the concept.

We also find that there is a correlation not so much between the

poverty and the background of the student and success as we do

with the quality of the teacher and the success of the students. And

so we need to look at programs that bring our best teachers to the

more difficult teaching situations. There are rural situations, urban

situations where the teaching is more challenging. We need to find

a way to motivate and move our best teachers.

Mr. DAVIS. I have three teachers in my family, a son-in-law, a

daughter and my wife. She teaches second grade. There are numerous occasions when I am traveling in the northern part of the district I represent that someone will tell me, your wife taught me in

84

second grade, and I love it. My little six-year old granddaughter,

Ashton, asked her mom the other day, she said, mom, or mother,

why do all the little kids hug you? She was afraid her mother was

going to start loving the little kids more than she did her.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. So I think we still have today that feeling, at least

in the rural areas, that the teacher is kind of something special.

I hope that we can keep that going.

Dr. Ohme, I am running out of time. In your testimony you characterized the NSF Math and Science Partnership Program as exemplary for engaging K through 12 educational practitioners in

math and science and university faculty in advancing science and

math education in the schools. There is a persistent rumor, maybe

not true, that the upcoming budget proposal for fiscal 2005 will

move the NSF program to the Department of Education. What is

your view on the overall impact of such a proposal and does it

make sense to maintain separate coordinated partnership programs

at NSF and the Department of Education?

Dr. OHME. That is an excellent question, sir. The role of the National Science Foundation and the role of the Department of Education are two distinct roles. The role of the National Science Foundation, as I understand it, is a research, very narrow type role. The

use of scientists, mathematicians and engineers into a K–12 setting

is something unique, something we have not done more than a year

or two. And the money that Congress allocates for math/science

partnerships is for the express purpose of bringing that group of

people into the schools. For us to spend millions of dollars on a program without having tested it, experienced it, done some research

on it and identify some best practices I do not think is sound judgment. So I think to continue an allocation to the National Science

Foundation to prototype programs, to go out to different distinct

situations, test out some strategies, find out what works and what

does not work and then communicate this body of best practices to

the Department of Education that is typically given a large amount

of money typically allocated in a block grant or by formula or something based on population and need, and be able to carry them and

say here are some things that we know work in these situations,

here are some things that we have found do not work in these situations, put this in your repertoire of spending money.

So I think that at least at this point in time, where we have a

scenario that’s new, we need to be able to gather more data. I think

all of us can identify some college faculty members who if thrown

into a K–12 situation are not going to be effective. But yet we have

some situations at Tech where it is extremely effective and we outlined some of those programs in our testimony. So I think it can

happen, but we need to document what those profiles are before we

put massive amounts of money out.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I yield back to Congressman

Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Congressman Davis, thank you.

Mr. Arnson, I think at this point we will get into questions from

the audience. I want to remind members of the audience who are

participating in the hearing that your questions can be to any one

85

of our witnesses or to the entire panel. So at this point we look forward to hearing your questions.

Yes, sir. Let me—just a minute. I guess in the interest of making

sure that everybody can hear your question, we are going to ask

you to come down and come to the main microphone here.

Mr. BUTLER. [Inaudible.]

Mr. GINGREY. Members of the panel, could you hear the question?

Ms. PURCELL. No.

Mr. GINGREY. Okay. That is not your fault. The sound system

may not be as good as it needs to be. Can you actually, you know,

act like you are on one of these TV shows, what do you call it, the

one where——

Mr. DAVIS. Reality.

Mr. GINGREY. Reality, there you go. And just put that thing right

in your mouth.

Mr. BUTLER. I have a question for this panel. Most of you all referred to math and science organizations for the future. I just want

to know what type of math organization—math and science organization were you all planning for today, the present.

Mr. DAVIS. I think what his question is, is that we are talking

about the future of math and science. His concern and interest

would be what are we doing today in math and science. Is that correct?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLURE. I will address that for you, Mr. Butler, since you

are in my class during this period.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCCLURE. One of the things we are going to do is try and

give you a good base in science so that you will be well qualified

when you leave Campbell High School to go out and participate in

science on any level that somebody leaving high school could be

best prepared for. There are lots of things that are available to you.

There are all kinds of science organizations, you know, here at the

school. We have a chemistry club, we have lots of things that you

can avail yourself of. Probably the most important thing for you to

be aware of right now though is Chapter 2 and the chemistry that

we are studying.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BUTLER. Can I ask another question?

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, sir, sure.

Mr. BUTLER. He spoke on—Mr. Cassidy, he spoke on coaches

teaching in the math and science classrooms. I would like to know

how you feel about that because Mr. McClure is a coach and is in

the science classroom.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CASSIDY. Well, now there is a difference. There are those

that are trained in math and happen to coach in their spare time

and there are those that are trained as coaches and because of constraints have to come into the classroom and take any number of

different subjects. I think it is great when it works. My point is,

I think in fields like mathematics and especially in the sciences the

needs are so unique, the subject matter is so unique that as each

of the panelists have noted, teachers must be properly trained both

86

to handle the subject matter and also hopefully to get you very enthusiastic about that. Now your football coach maybe can get you

very enthusiastic about math. He can perhaps make it very, very

applied. There is a lot of math in football and in basketball. I had

an econ professor who was a big enthusiast of basketball. He could

take a very complex economics problem and explain it in terminology that basketball players—and that is great. But math and

science require very, very specialized skills. I think we just need

to be making certain that our teachers do have those skills, and if

they also want to participate in coaching and sports, I think that

is outstanding—or any other extra curricular activity that they

want to pursue with the students.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Cassidy’s answer, while somewhat accurate, I

have to remind him that this is a no-spin zone in regard to some

of the math and science that is applicable to sports. But certainly

he and I realize that there has been a paradigm shift since the

time that we both went to high school. I think your question is a

great question, because it is true that years ago principals—Mr.

Arnson would hire a football coach or a basketball coach primarily

because they wanted a good coach. Then after they decided to hire

that individual, they would say oh, by the way, the class that you

are going to teach is calculus, because they had to teach as well

as coach because primarily they are teachers. I think that the paradigm has shifted.

I am so glad you asked the question, because I think today what

you are seeing is principals like Mr. Arnson and others who are

serving us so well; when they hire coaches, it is a secondary goal.

Primarily they need to be good teachers. Coaches that you now see

teaching in our school system are well prepared and have great

mastery of their subject matter and they just happen also to be

good athletic coaches.

All right, we are going to limit you to two. Thank you.

Who is next?

[Student raises hand.]

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, sir, come on down.

[Applause.]

Mr. DAVIS. While we have the young gentleman coming, what I

am impressed with is that these young folks are listening obviously

because they caught the comment that was made. And truly the

football coach is part of math. Georgia Tech and Cumberland University have I think the highest football score in the history of this

country. You have to be able to have some mathematical skills to

add that score up. It was a horrible score. Cumberland University

is in the central part of Tennessee. But one of the analytical parts

of football is when it is fourth down and 25, the analytical math

part of it is you punt.

[Laughter.]

VOICE. I have a similar question. My name is Matthew and I

teach chemistry here. You talked earlier about training and retaining and attracting the best teachers to not only Georgia but to any

school in the country and I was interested in what Coach McClure

had to say about that. Not just because he is my boss, but because

he is one of the science teachers and someone who has first-hand

experience, I would just like to let the audience and the panel have

87

a chance to hear what he would have to say since he was not able

to speak on that earlier.

Mr. MCCLURE. I appreciate that, Matt. You know that is something—and I listen respectfully to a lot of comments. A lot of times

we do get a lot of input about teaching. I guess as—you know, we

still consider teaching a royal profession. Maybe everybody does not

consider it that, but I know teachers do and I certainly do. I have

a lot of comrades who do a great job. It is somewhat dismaying

sometimes though—we have all had brilliant professors that are

masters of a subject matter, but have an inability to communicate.

To me that is equally as important or maybe more important, being

able to deliver. It is salesmanship. If you cannot sell it—that is

why students sometimes do not like certain subjects. You cannot

just beat up on math and science because I think it would be true

across the board. It is salesmanship. You know, you can maybe

know less—and that does not mean that you are not qualified.

I am glad that he asked the question. I am a biology major with

a chemistry minor. That was what I started out to do, and they

asked me if I wanted a job, could I coach. So I did go the opposite

way with that. But you have to be able to sell it. If I go to your

class and you write with one hand on one board and erase with the

other hand on the other board, that is all you do for me and say

have a nice day, I am not going to be interested in whatever you

are trying to tell me about. I think that is the key to it. It is a little

difficult to accept genuinely the idea of someone taking a threeweek course and being considered a teacher. You could not do that

if you wanted to be a lawyer or if you wanted to be a physician.

Yet somehow we have reached the point where we think that

teaching could be done that way. Perhaps those who make decisions along that line need to spend a little time with us so they

could really realize what really goes on, because I think the retention rate of those people who make those changes sometimes is not

very high. I think what they realize when they come into the classroom is that there are a lot of variables that teachers have to deal

with in addition to knowing the subject matter and being able to

present it.

There is a story told—I will make it brief—about a business leader who was getting on the teachers and trying to encourage them

to do the very best they could. This person was a blueberry salesman, and the person said that, you know, what we do is we make

the best blueberry pie in the world. We get the blueberries, we

make the pie and we send it out. There was an old teacher in the

back of the room who pointed out the fact, yeah, you can do that,

you can make the best blueberry pies, but you can choose your

blueberries. Unfortunately in education we do not get to choose

that. We take what comes and you have to use a skill. It is a calling to be able to teach. It is a blessing to be able to teach, but not

everybody who is gifted in the subject area can have the ability to

deliver.

[Applause.]

Mr. DAVIS. You have proven that cloning is a great idea. I wonder if we could clone you and make all the teachers in America like

you?

88

Mr. GINGREY. We have plenty of time students. So we will be

glad—oh, good, we will take our next question.

VOICE. Good morning.

Mr. GINGREY. Good morning.

VOICE. I have heard some of the panelists talk about teachers

needing technological improvement in tools to enhance the learning

environment to inspire students. My question is directed toward

the Congressmen. What kind of funding would the Federal Government provide to make these technological improvements happen?

Mr. GINGREY. That is a very good question. One thing that I

have learned in the Congress, and I certainly learned that prior in

the Georgia General Assembly, is that everything is based on priorities. You have a certain amount of revenue to spend. Now states

have to balance their budgets. I wish that the Federal Government

had the same constraints. But even if we had a balanced budget

amendment, Constitutional amendment, in Congress, the exceptions would be in times of national emergency or times of war, and

we find ourselves today in both situations. So you are seeing some

deficit spending that none of us like. Our budget this past fiscal year, 2004, was $2.3 trillion. Now think about that, $2.3 trillion. That is a lot of zeros. Two-thirds of

that money is for what we call nondiscretionary mandatory

spendings, Social Security, Medicare, things that we—no matter

what, money that has to be spent. It is very difficult to cut that

part of the budget because promises made are promises that have

to be kept. People are living longer, there are more recipients of

those entitlement—sometimes called entitlement expenditures. So

only about B of the budget is what we call discretionary spending

and, of course, education, K–12, higher ed, Head Start. You know,

from three-year-olds all the way up to college and beyond is a part

of the discretionary spending. Oh, guess what, so is the Department of Defense and the need to have a strong military, and the

Department of Homeland Security and the need to protect each

and every citizen so that when these youngsters like yourselves

and your little brothers and sisters go to school every day, you do

not have to have that great fear that something like 9/11 is going

to happen to them or yourselves, and your parents and grandparents of course have that same great fear.

So those are the constraints that we find ourselves in. And even

with that, this administration has increased fairly significantly the

amount of spending on education. But certain line items may not

be to everybody’s satisfaction in regard to things like special education and as you point out technology and the need for additional

spending. I wish we could do everything that we need to do, but

unfortunately there are some constraints there. But I truly believe

that in this state and hopefully in the state of Tennessee and

throughout this nation that we—maybe we are spending enough

money, but possibly we are not spending it as wisely as we could

or should. You know, you have always heard the admonition to

work hard, work hard, but you need to work smart, too. Sometimes

people work very hard but not very smart, and the same thing regarding spending. It is not just a matter of throwing additional dollars at it, it is looking for the programs that work and the programs that do not work and accountability. In fact, that is what No

89

Child Left Behind is all about. So it is a great question and I appreciate it. I would be interested in how Congressman Davis feels

about that, and maybe any of the witnesses might want to comment.

Mr. DAVIS. I will make a brief comment. Recently flying back to

Washington I picked up a local telephone cooperative magazine

called the Tennessee Magazine. The front page said, ‘‘A Better Educated America,’’ and I was excited about reading that story. It was

about half a page. It related to the 1940 census compared to the

2000 census, and I wanted to compare the district I represent to

the national average. In 1940 less than one out of four people who

were over the age of 25 had a high school education or better. This

was 1940. It is eight out of ten today. It is 80 percent today. That

is not good enough, but it is much better than it was 60 years prior

to. One in 40 people had a BS degree in America. Now one in four

has a BS degree or better over the age of 25, and 80 percent had

a high school education or better. So I checked the congressional

district I represent. 400 some odd thousand people lived in that

district in 1940. A little over 11,000 had a high school education

or better. 2.7 percent of the population had a high school education

or better. Two of those people who did not have a high school education, like many others I know, were my parents. Why did they

not have a high school education? One-teacher school buildings was

the norm for those poor communities. And York High School in

Jamestown was built by Alvin C. York, Sergeant York, in the late

1920’s and was too great a distance for my parents to travel to,

that only high school in that area. No transportation. We were not

funding public education adequately. Basically we were leaving it

up to small communities to do their own thing or in many cases

faith-based organizations in the area that I am from, the Cumberland Plateau. And there are many foundations today, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians. Foundations are all that is

left. The buildings are no longer there. We made a strong commitment in the 1930’s and 1940’s to public education. As a result, we

have seen dramatic improvements.

Are we committed to funding public education today as we were

in the past? The Tennessee State Constitution says every child, regardless of where they live, every child will be afforded the same

opportunity for an education as any other child in the state. We do

not have that on the national level. We spend a little over $50 billion out of $2.3 trillion on education, and a large part of that goes

to research universities, to institutions of higher learning beyond

the K through 12 level. We do have many regulations and requirements as a result of federal funding, which in many cases brings

an unfair, unfunded mandate to the local school districts.

So how do we change that? I think first of all, Representative

Gingrey has been very accurate in saying there are a limited

amount of dollars that are available. I believe if you look in the

1940’s and 2000, the most important factor in a country’s continuance as a democracy is to be sure that every child gets a great education. Bill Gates, in a recent trip that my wife and I took to that

area along with several other individuals, many who serve in Congress, made the comment that was striking to me. He said we hire

a large percentage of the 28,000 people who work here at this comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:21 Mar 26, 2004 Jkt 091364 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\012304A\91364 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
90

plex in Seattle, Washington, and what they build at Bill Gates’

Microsoft you can carry in your hand. It is technology. It is a program. He said most of the folks we hire anymore, the largest percentage, are not American citizens, maybe educated in America’s

universities but from some other country. He said here is why. In

most countries—in many countries there is a merit-based educational system, K through 12. We do not have it in America. His

opinion was that we should not have. That we offer an opportunity

for every child regardless of academic ability, social and economic

values. In essence America made the commitment to every child K

through 12. We do have merit-based in higher education. If you do

not make the grade you are gone. You have got one quarter, one

semester and if you are not at a certain academic level, you leave.

So we have a merit-based system in higher education. We chose not

to do that on the lower level. That requires a much larger commitment of funding to be sure that every child is educated to the level

that they are able to reach. Should we change? I am like Bill

Gates, I do not think we should. I think our system has been extremely successful. It has elevated us, in my opinion, to the most

prominent country in the civilization of mankind. Do we need to

fund more for education? You betcha. Will we be able to? Perhaps

not. The thought in Washington is that most decisions being made

is that, quite frankly, the funding for education should come from

local and state agencies, and unless that changes, that will still be

the driving force for funding for education in America.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Congressman Davis.

Next question.

VOICE. I am a junior here at Campbell High School and I work

in the Math Department and I often hear teachers talking about

the curriculum. I often sit in the classrooms and see teachers having to speed through the text and not getting to actually students

but fill them with information so they can pass the test. I am just

wondering if there is any room in the future of math or science to

get away from speeding through a subject because maybe a good

student does not understand because they do not learn that fast,

and giving them room to actually learn what they need to know so

they can be successful later in life.

Mr. GINGREY. That is a great question. I think we will ask our

witnesses to respond to that.

Mr. DAVIS. While someone is getting ready, I might add, this

school itself is addressing part of the issues he is talking about, because you are bringing what we call in Tennessee a magnet school.

You are bringing those who need to be challenged intellectually

into a setting such as this here at Campbell.

Dr. OHME. A characteristic of the American education curriculum

in contrast to many others in the world is that we have a lot of

redundancy and the same topics are taught over and over again.

If you look at the 6th grade and 7th grade math you will see it very

much. There is a movement in Georgia, and this school has taken

a lead here in looking at the curriculum and reducing the number

of concepts that a student is expected to master in one year and

having teachers focus on that, but then not going back and repeating. In other words, if you master it and you call upon it and you

use it, the teacher does not have to go back. So if you start from

91

the first grade and define a smaller number of topics per grade and

concentrate on mastery, then you will build over a decade or so a

system that I think would address the question that the young

man asked.

Mr. HILL. And to follow up on that comment, Georgia’s curriculum was audited by Phi Delta Kappa several years ago and basically the report says our curriculum was a mile wide and an inch

deep and it did not provide focus at each of the different grade levels and the rewrite of the Quality Core Curriculum now called performance standards will provide specific content standards and expectations for each of the different grades for K–12—K–8, and for

grades 9 to 12 specific content standards and expectations for each

of the different courses. So I think we are definitely moving toward

having clearer expectations and goals. With regard to assessments,

there is an ongoing debate that I think will forever ask how much

testing is too much testing and the other side of that, one might

suggest that in order to ensure that students know the subject

matter, you have to assess them as frequently as you need to so

that you can then provide intervention or remediation or allow for

acceleration for those students who have already mastered the content.

The steps that we have to take at the state is ensuring that the

curriculum and the assessment and the instruction are all aligned

so there is no redundancy.

Mr. GINGREY. Again, just as a little closing comment on the question. Obviously the concern over—particularly in regard to math

and science—teaching to the test and because of that not having

the opportunity to really pursue the subject matter in depth and

have that good full understanding. I think as the witnesses have

said, accountability also is very important. There is going to be

kind of a transition phase, I think where we are going to have to

realize that there will be some teaching to the test because schools

are not going to want to be labeled as not making adequate yearly

progress, but I think as this hearing indicated and the testimony

from the witnesses, this improvement in math and science is going

to need to start at the primary—indeed, even the primary school

level, and there needs to be, in my opinion, coordination between

your primary/elementary school teachers, your middle school teachers and your high school teachers. And a math department does

not need to be three different math departments in a particular

school system. I would hope that week that they spend before

school starts, that teachers that teach math, whether in elementary, middle or high school level will come together and there can

be an understanding of a longitudinal need that everybody is on

the same page. But for the time being, there is going to be a little

heartburn in regard to accountability.

We have time probably for one and possibly two more questions.

VOICE. I am a junior here at Campbell High School and I am in

the IB program. First of all, I would like to say what an honor and

a privilege it is to be here today and speak with you ladies and

gentlemen about issues about school.

My question involves a comment, I am not sure who made it, Mr.

Gingrey or Mr. Davis, but that American schools are not really that

competitive on a global level as schools in other countries may be.

92

My question is, is there anything being done about that? Are there

any plans to make our schools more competitive so we can more effectively compete on a global scale?

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate that question. I think I was the one

that made that comment and Congressman Davis may want to

comment on this question as well.

I think it was the Governor of Michigan several years ago that

led a group on a trip to Japan and some of the western European

countries and came back and a report was given, an accurate report, that I think 15 industrialized countries were compared on

math and science and the United States was pretty close to the

bottom on both of these.

Congressman Davis in his comments just a minute ago alluded

to maybe one of the reasons for that is this merit-based education

that we see, I guess maybe in Japan and some of the western European countries—Germany—where if you are found to be maybe

lacking when you get to the eighth grade, then you are channeled

in one direction and the brighter students are channeled in another. And, you know, if we adopted that model, and to take it over

to a sports analogy in regard to Michael Jordan, where would he

be today if he had not been allowed to struggle through his freshman year when he did not make the basketball team. Sometimes

people are late bloomers and that is certainly true academically as

well. So it is a great question and it is something that we do need

to address. I will turn the mic over to Congressman Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. In the comment from Mr. Gates—do not want to really refer back to him as being the authority, but in the comments,

he said a lot of our employees now are coming from Singapore,

India and China because of the merit-based educational system.

Those who have been tried and tested move into certain categories.

Therefore they may even be educated here in America because our

universities perhaps are better. I am not sure, but he said many

of those are educated here, even though K–12 they went through

a merit-based educational system.

I think when you compare our K–12—I am not making excuses

because we need to improve, but when you compare our K–12 to

other countries that have a merit-based system, when you are talking about the high school graduate, you are comparing maybe not

apples to oranges, but at least you are not making the same comparison of the academic achievements of every child going through

high school and only a few reaching the 12th grade level maybe in

some of the other countries.

I do not know that that is the answer as to where we are at, but

I understand that when the Nobel laureates are given out, that

generally over half of those in science are from American citizens

and over half of the patents applied for in the world today are from

an American citizen or an American company. That does not allude

to the fact that we have a failing education system. It may be failing for some, but it is certainly not failing for all.

Mr. GINGREY. It is such a good question, I think we will let this

be the last question and I will ask our expert witnesses who have

testified here today to go ahead and try to address that. And again,

the question—I will have you repeat it for them.

93

VOICE. My question was are there any plans, any ways that we

could increase our competitiveness on a global scale with schools in

other countries like Japan and India.

Mr. HILL. I would like to point to two initiatives at the Department of Education as undertaken over the last several years. One

in particular this year, the State will pay for AP exams. AP exams,

of course, are tied to not only national standards but to international standards. And another initiative that I want to highlight

is the rewrite of the math performance standards. We actually

looked at different national benchmarks and international benchmarks and settled on adopting the Japanese model for math. So

what you are going to see within several years is that beginning

in 7th grade through 12th, teachers of different math courses are

going to include a standard algebra, geometry and data analysis or

statistics and it is possible that within the next several years that

the term algebra or geometry or statistics, those terms may not be

the name of the different math courses where we are talking about

maybe math 1, math 2, math 3, math 4, but that does not have

a nice ring to it, we are going to have to come up with a better

name, but we are definitely looking at Japan and adopting their

model for K–12 math concepts and math standards.

Ms. PURCELL. I want to say that at Campbell High School, the

IB curriculum, our scores on our tests are well above the world average. I do not know if it is really a teacher or, you know, Americans are stupider or dumber, but——

[Laughter.]

Ms. PURCELL. —we do receive a more elevated level of instruction and are taking the same tests as students in other countries,

at least at this school and in the United States in general, we perform better.

VOICE. I am not necessarily speaking about the IB program here,

but we do receive an advanced level of education, I was really

speaking of students who are not on IB, who are receiving basic

classes.

Mr. MCCLURE. I think that is a good question because I think

Campbell being recognized in the top four percent is not just our

IB program, it includes some other parts of our school, our AP

scores I think were included in that, which are not necessarily our

IB students.

But I think you cannot under-estimate the point that the Congressman made about students in Japan. In Japan, as I understand it, all of the students are Japanese.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCCLURE. In America, it is a little bit different. We do not

have one type of blueberry, and neither do we say to any of those

blueberries that even though you messed up in the 3rd grade, you

cannot go to the 4th grade ever. You may have to work at it a little

bit, but you go. We do not say that because you messed up in the

3rd grade, you are going to be a farm hand, like I was raised on

a farm, you do not get relegated to that.

So that has a big role in our educational system. I agree it is not

just apples to oranges. We do a great job of educating what we

have. We can do better, no doubt about that, but if you really had

some other country to compare us to, I think when you take the

94

best and the brightest that we have to offer, you see what it is that

we are really doing. It would just take somebody from Japan coming to teach a class in America to really understand and appreciate

what a great situation they have. It would be probably similar to

teaching private schools here, where you can decide on who you

want to have and who you do not want. Where in public schools,

we do not want or get that luxury.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you very much, and at this point, we are

going to go ahead and wrap up. I want to first of all give Congressman Lincoln Davis from Tennessee an opportunity to wrap up and

then I will have a few closing comments and then we will adjourn.

Congressman Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, it has been certainly a pleasure to be here today

and listen to many of the students who have asked the questions

that you have asked and for the testimony. Ms. Purcell, a student

here, as well as the testimony of one of the teachers, Mr. McClure,

and others, Department of Education as well as the universities

here in Georgia.

I am excited about what I am hearing, especially from the students. It is exciting what I am hearing about the coach who also

was a science and math instructor. I think America’s future is

bright because of individuals like you, those of you in this room.

Thank you for listening to those of us who serve in Congress and

the panel that has been here today.

I can assure you, Mr. Gingrey, that there are two staff members—Joye and John over there—who may want to take this peach

away from me, but they are not getting it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. It is good to be here. Thank you very much.

Mr. GINGREY. Congressman Davis, thank you.

[Applause.]

Mr. GINGREY. Let me just summarize for a minute. First of all,

to thank our witnesses—Ms. Purcell, one of your own; Mr.

McClure, indeed one of your own outstanding faculty members; and

Mr. Hill, Dr. Ohme and Mr. Cassidy—how much we appreciate

them taking the time out of their very, very busy schedules and

how the important work that they do to be here and spend half a

day with us this morning, how much we appreciate each and every

witness who has testified.

As I listened to both the witnesses and Congressman Davis and

the questions from the audience, it made me realize once again

how important it is to have a Full Committee hearing of the United

States Congress Science Committee here in my District in Cobb

County, Georgia at Campbell High School—Newsweek, top four percent of the best schools in America. What a great venue to discuss

this issue, this so important issue regarding fueling our high tech

workforce with math and science education.

Congressman Davis pointed out something to me that is easily

overlooked, that we compare the United States of America with

these other industrialized countries, that we are not really comparing apples and apples, and he described the merit-based education that some of these other countries have. And it is so important to remember, I think, in closing here today that math and

science and technology—at one point in our history maybe when

95

some of us with a little bit of gray around the temple went to high

school and college, everybody did not need to have a good understanding of math and science. But in today’s 21st century where

yes, we are losing a lot of these old cut and sew manufacturing

type jobs that did not take great skills or much education. Everybody—everybody—today needs to have a good understanding of

math and science. As I go around my District and there are a lot

of manufacturing companies—Lincoln, I was just yesterday at a

Honda plant in Haralson County, I was just at a clothing manufacturing plant in Carroll County, and the equipment that they use

is so highly advanced, computer-based, and sometimes robotics. So

math and science is important for each and every student. And

that is why we are here today—to try to instill a lot of enthusiasm.

As has already been pointed out by Congressman Davis, if we had

more teachers like Mr. McClure, then I think every student could

be a valedictorian like Ms. Purcell.

I thank all of you for coming. It has been a great hearing. And

at this point, I declare this hearing over. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]